setPower

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 only states the basic power on/off action and does not mention side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or what happens if the device is already in the target state. This is insufficient for a mutating tool.

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 containing no waste. 'Power a device on or off' directly conveys the purpose and scope. Given the tool's simplicity and the schema already documenting the two parameters, this is appropriately sized.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, so the description should cover important contextual information. Yet it only states the basic action and omits details about what the tool returns, what happens on success or failure, and any dependencies such as requiring an already-configured device. The description is too bare for a mutating operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the boolean parameter 'power' has a clear description ('true = power on, false = power off'). The 'deviceName' description is minimal but another agent still knows it identifies a device. The description itself adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, 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 'Power a device on or off' states a specific verb (power), a resource (device), and the possible outcomes (on/off). It is clear enough to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools or mention any constraints on which devices it applies to.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and there are no prerequisites or context. It merely states the action, leaving an agent to infer the appropriate scenarios and any conditions under which the tool should be used.

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