Wake or sleep the Shield

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

Annotations already declare idempotency, non-destructiveness, and non-read-only, but the description adds command-level behavior: it uses WAKEUP/SLEEP rather than a POWER toggle and only succeeds after the Shield reports the new state. It also notes no command is sent if the Shield is already in that state, reinforcing the idempotent behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and mechanism. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the value mapping, command choice, or success/no-op behavior.

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 simple one-parameter state setter with output schema and safety annotations present, the description covers purpose, mapping, mechanism, success condition, and no-op behavior. It leaves failure/timeout behavior unstated, and sibling differentiation is only implicit via the command mechanism.

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 does so fully by mapping each enum value to the real action ('on' = wake, 'off' = sleep).

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 names specific verbs (wake/sleep) and the resource (the Shield), and maps them to the 'on'/'off' values. It also distinguishes the operation from a POWER toggle, though it does not explicitly contrast with the reboot_shield sibling.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb pair—the tool is for waking or sleeping—and the description adds the no-op condition when already in the desired state. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives like reboot_shield or send_key.

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