Set Power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly reveals that `on=true` falls back to Wake-on-LAN if the API is unreachable, `on=false` puts the TV into standby, and the response returns the consolidated state after the command. This is rich, useful behavioral context beyond the raw schema.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then adds parameter semantics, and ends with the return behavior. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema available, this description is complete: it covers the action, the parameter semantics, edge-case fallback behavior, and the response concept. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the single boolean parameter: `on=true` means power on with a WoL fallback, and `on=false` means standby. This meaning is completely absent from the schema, which only declares the type as boolean.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Allume ou éteint la TV' (turns the TV on or off), making the tool's sole purpose unmistakable. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like set_input, set_volume, and set_mute by focusing on power state only.

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 implies clear usage: call this tool whenever the TV needs to be powered on or off, using the boolean `on` parameter. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous and no exclusions are needed given the tool's narrow scope.

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