build_control_switch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait: 'Read-only: returns { command }.' It also explains the behavior of both scopes and the inclusive range semantics, adding context beyond the function name.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. It specifies both modes, the range behavior, and the read-only return value without any wasted words or repetition.

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 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's modes, the range behavior, and the return shape. It doesn't discuss error cases or prerequisites, but for a read-only builder of this complexity, the information is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that scope 'switch' sets a switch or inclusive range (switchId..endId) and scope 'self_switch' sets A–D, which enriches the understanding beyond the per-parameter schema 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 uses the specific verb 'Build' and clearly identifies both event command types (Control Switches 121 and Control Self Switch 123). It also ties the tool to 'insertion via insert_event_commands,' distinguishing it from other build_* tools and specifying its exact role.

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?

It clearly states the tool is for building event commands to be inserted via insert_event_commands, and explicitly differentiates the two scopes ('switch' vs 'self_switch'). It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool names, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand when to use it.

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