Set an input_boolean value

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond the annotations: it discloses the concrete service mapping (turn_on vs turn_off) and that the call goes over HTTP, letting the agent reason about idempotence and side effects. It stops short of discussing permission requirements or failure modes, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then structured into rationale, usage, exclusion and return sections. Slightly longer than strictly necessary (the HTTP transport note and the return sentence are marginal), but every line is readable and none are padding-level filler.

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 two-parameter, idempotent setter with a full schema, rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, routing, mechanics and result. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters carry descriptions, so the schema already does the work; the description's true/false-to-turn_on/turn_off mapping merely restates the 'value' schema text. Baseline 3 applies when the schema is fully self-documenting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set an input_boolean helper to true or false') and goes further by naming the exact underlying service calls invoked for each branch. An agent can distinguish this from helpers_set_input_number/text/select and from the generic entity controls without opening any schema.

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?

Has explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' clauses: it names the alternative tools (entities_turn_on/entities_turn_off) and the condition under which they should be preferred. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives guidance the dimension asks for.

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