write_device

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the non-obvious dry-run default, the gating conditions for actual motion, and the safety override from emergency stop—valuable knowledge that is not inferable from the schema alone.

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 short sentences with purpose front-loaded. Every sentence contributes behavioral or safety context, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 five-parameter write operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers the critical dry-run and motion-application semantics but omits what a 'slot' is, how 'value' should be structured, and when to prefer this tool over its siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for apply and confirmed by tying them to dry-run behavior and motion application, but the required parameters device_id, slot, and value are not explained beyond their names.

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 opening line 'Write one device slot.' states a specific verb and resource, and it matches the tool name. It is distinguishable from siblings like read_device and emergency_stop, though the meaning of 'slot' is left somewhat undefined.

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 contextual conditions: calls are dry-run by default, and applying motion requires enabled actuators plus apply=true and confirmed=true. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over the listed alternatives or state exclusions, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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