set_fermentation_chamber_fan_enabled

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining behavior. It only states the action (enable/disable fan) without disclosing side effects, whether the chamber must exist, if the change is reversible, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap, similar to the 'update_drive' example.

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 clear sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It conveys the action precisely and efficiently.

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 the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core behavior but lacks usage guidance and any behavioral context beyond the boolean toggle. With no annotations to supplement, this is only minimally complete for a control action.

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 fully documents both parameters (chamber_id and enabled) with descriptions, covering 100% of parameters. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (enable/disable) and resource (fan of a fermentation chamber), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that control temperature, heating, cooling, or light. The purpose is immediately obvious.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool—when you need to turn the fermentation chamber fan on or off—but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. It does not mention, for instance, that other tools handle heating/cooling, so usage is implied rather than clearly contrasted with siblings.

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