Resolve a Homey flow card argument

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: returned objects contain app-specific fields next to id/name, and manually rebuilding the object loses those fields and breaks the card. This is valuable contextual warning, though it does not discuss pagination or result limits.

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 description is three sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the two follow-up sentences deliver a critical caveat about object preservation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with six parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns, that results are structured objects with app-specific fields, and how the agent must consume them. Combined with the full schema coverage, an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all six parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description focuses on the result object and storage semantics rather than adding per-parameter syntax or formatting details beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool's function: it asks Homey what a device-typed or autocomplete-typed argument can be set to and returns choices. It distinguishes itself from sibling inspection tools like homey_flowcard_describe and homey_flowcards_search by focusing on resolving argument values rather than describing cards.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool—to resolve autocomplete arguments—and gives a strong usage directive: store the whole returned object as the argument value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to choose it appropriately.

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