entities_toggle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states that the entity is toggled between on and off but omits important details: what happens if the entity does not support on/off states, whether the operation is idempotent, any side effects, or prerequisites like permissions. This minimal description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema shown), the description lacks completeness. It does not mention that the entity must support on/off states, that the entity_id is required, or what the return value looks like. The agent is left guessing about preconditions and outcomes, making the description insufficient for informed invocation.

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 has a single required parameter 'entity_id' with no description (schema coverage 0%). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name; it does not explain what valid entity IDs look like, what types of entities are accepted, or how to specify them. Thus, it provides no additional semantic value.

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 clearly states the action ('Toggle') and the resource ('entity') with specific outcome ('between on and off'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like entities_turn_on and entities_turn_off, which target specific states rather than flipping. The verb+resource+scope is unambiguous.

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 such as entities_turn_on, entities_turn_off, or entities_enable_entity. It does not explain that toggle is suitable when the current state is unknown or when a simple state flip is desired. The agent must infer usage context from the name alone.

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