alarm_hub_trigger_output

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it warns that the tool physically triggers hardware, requires an explicit confirm=true, explains enable toggling behavior, and documents delay/duration effects. This is strong behavioral disclosure for a mutating operation.

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?

The warning is front-loaded and every subsequent line adds semantic value. Parameter hints are compactly grouped and there is no filler or repeated schema information.

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?

Given a physical hardware-triggering mutation with seven parameters and no annotations, the description covers safety, required identifiers, parameter semantics, and execution gating. The output schema exists, so no return-format explanation is needed, and nothing essential is missing.

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%, but the description documents every parameter: host formats, how to source alarm_hub_id, meaning of output_id, confirm as an execution guard, enable as on/off/toggle, delay in ms, and duration with 0 meaning indefinite. It fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Trigger an alarm-hub output' — and reinforces it with the exact HTTP endpoint. It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like relay_activate_output or list_alarm_hubs because it names the alarm-hub output trigger action.

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?

It gives actionable context: confirm must be true to execute, alarm_hub_id should be obtained from list_alarm_hubs, and the operation is gated by UNIFI_PROTECT_MUTATIONS_ENABLED. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use cases, but the route to prerequisites is clear.

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