set_access

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write, idempotent, non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavior: blocking relies on the router's Access Control and auto-enables it on first use, and a manual change persists only until the next scheduled change (or until flipped back). That timing/precedence detail is exactly the kind of context an agent can't get from structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two non-obvious behavioral rules. No filler, though the embedded quote style (e.g. "kids") is slightly noisy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Combined with the description's coverage of target forms and change duration, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; the undocumented `reason` parameter is the main residual gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains the accepted target forms (group name, owner name, single device) with examples, but says nothing about the `reason` parameter and only implicitly covers `enabled`. Partial compensation for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ("Turn internet access on or off") and enumerates the three valid target kinds (group, owner, single device) with concrete examples. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like pause_device or resume_device, which appear to touch the same capability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the target examples and the duration rule, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance, and the overlap with pause_device/resume_device is left unresolved. An agent cannot tell from the text which of these to pick.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.