set_fermentation_chamber_cooling_hysteresis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains 'deadband' semantically, which adds slight context, but it does not disclose effects (e.g., whether the change applies immediately), permissions required, reversibility, or response behavior. The valid range is already in the schema, so it adds no extra behavioral transparency.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant text. It immediately identifies the action and target, then states the valid range. Every word 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?

The tool is simple (two scalar parameters) with complete schema coverage. The description, combined with the schema, provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It could be more complete by explaining the behavioral meaning of hysteresis (e.g., 'the difference between the target temperature and when cooling activates'), but this is a minor gap given the simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both chamber_id and value. The tool description further clarifies the meaning of 'value' by calling it '(deadband)', which enhances understanding beyond the schema's 'Cooling hysteresis value (0.5–10)'. This adds semantic richness without being redundant.

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 action ('Set') and the specific resource ('cooling hysteresis') for a 'fermentation chamber'. This precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_fermentation_chamber_temperature or set_fermentation_chamber_heating_hysteresis. No ambiguity.

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 implies usage when the user needs to adjust the cooling deadband, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'when the cooling cycles too frequently'). It also doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions. The valid range is a constraint, not guidance on choosing between tools.

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