switch_show

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a state mutation ("switch the active show folder") but says nothing about persistence, whether the prior show stays configured, what happens if show_name is unknown, or whether the change requires the app to be running. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage these are significant gaps.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and wastes nothing; the examples add useful specificity. The "Args:" block is boilerplate but small enough not to be a burden.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is the sole source of information. It covers the happy path but omits failure modes and side effects, leaving the agent unable to predict the result of a bad or missing show name.

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 0%, but there is only one parameter and the description explains it as the name of the show to activate, with concrete examples ("christmas", "halloween"). This compensates partially, though it does not say whether the name must match an existing folder exactly or whether case matters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Switch the active xLights show folder"), which unambiguously describes what the tool does. It contrasts implicitly with siblings like list_shows and add_show_folder, though it never names an alternative. Clear purpose but no explicit sibling differentiation.

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 example show names but no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_shows (to discover names) or add_show_folder (to create one first). No prerequisites or error conditions are stated. The agent must infer the workflow.

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