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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the key behavioral gate (switching must be allowed and instance not paused), which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after sending (return value, acknowledgment), whether the operation is synchronous, or how failures surface — and the mutating nature is only implied by 'Befehl senden'.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and immediately follows with the key precondition. There is no fluff, no repetition of schema content, and 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?

For a moderate-complexity mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the essential precondition but leaves gaps: the expected return/acknowledgment, error behavior beyond the precondition, and the fact that this is the sole state-changing tool among its siblings. Adequate for basic invocation, but incomplete.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters with concrete examples (e.g., 'on'/'off'/true/false, 'switch:0', 'set' for Shelly). Per the baseline rule for high coverage, the description need not add parameter detail — and it doesn't add anything beyond what the schema already provides.

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, resource, and action: 'Sendet einen Schaltbefehl an eine Instanz' (sends a switching command to an instance). This clearly differentiates it from its siblings, which are all inspection/read tools (get_latest_metrics, list_instances, poll_instance, test_instance). An agent can immediately recognize this as the only write/control tool in the set.

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 explicitly states a precondition: the command is only possible when 'Schalten erlauben' (switching allowed) is active for the instance and it is not paused. This gives clear context for when the tool can be invoked. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios beyond these preconditions.

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