apply_device_parameter_write

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

Beyond the destructive/non-idempotent/open-world annotations, it discloses that the device must be stopped, that the write is verified by reading back, that EEPROM may be persisted, and that failures are not auto-retried -- exactly the operational risks an agent needs. The EEPROM note and no-retry rule are not derivable from the annotation block.

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?

It is short, dense and front-loads the action and precondition before the caveats. The phrasing is compressed to the point of ambiguity in places ('re-check ... old value/attributes'), which costs a little clarity.

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?

With an output schema (read-back values) and safety annotations already supplied, the description needs only to cover preconditions and hazards -- which it mostly does. The missing piece is the provenance and lifecycle of plan_id, which matters for a tool whose pipeline depends on a preceding prepare call.

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 single parameter plan_id has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never explains what a plan id is, where it comes from, or how long it stays valid. The phrase 'execute the plan' only weakly implies a prior prepare step, leaving the only required argument underspecified.

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 states a specific verb plus resource: execute a prepared plan by re-checking device/firmware/old value/attributes, then writing a single parameter in the stopped state and reading it back. It also carves out run/restart commands to a dedicated flow, which separates it from execute_drive_run/plan_drive_run. It never names prepare_device_parameter_write, so the prepare-vs-apply distinction must be inferred from 'execute the plan'.

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 an explicit precondition -- the user must have explicitly specified this parameter and value -- and an explicit exclusion: run/restart commands go through the dedicated flow. It stops short of naming the sibling tools (prepare_device_parameter_write, apply_drive_speed_change) or stating that plan_id must come from a prior prepare step.

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