set_switch

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and identifier, but omits important details such as waiting behavior, failure handling, or whether the switch state is forced. The many wait parameters in the schema are not referenced in the description.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy, making it efficient. However, its brevity omits useful context, though for a simple action it 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?

With 11 parameters, a nested object, and no annotations or output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient to guide an agent on using the optional wait parameters and understanding post-action behavior. The schema helps but the description does not integrate this context.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'stable DebugBridge ID' aligns with the id parameter but adds little beyond the schema's param descriptions.

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 ('Set') and resource ('a UISwitch'), and identifies the identifier mechanism ('stable DebugBridge ID'). This distinguishes it from other input tools like set_text and tap_element.

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?

No explicit when/when-not or alternatives are mentioned, but the tool's name and description imply it is for changing a switch state, contrasting with sibling tools for text/typing. However, there is no discussion of prerequisites or conditions.

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