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

Annotations already declare the operation as not read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond restating the toggle operation and platform; it does not cover side effects, required permissions, or state-change behavior.

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 that conveys the core purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 simple toggle tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. It could be more helpful by noting prerequisites or expected behavior, but no output schema exists and the structured fields carry most of the operational detail.

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 100%, so both parameters (udid and enable) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline score of 3 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 states a specific action (enable or disable) and resource (Bluetooth) on a specific platform (Android device). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings such as device_toggle_wifi.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as device connection or ADB availability. Usage is only implied by the tool's purpose.

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