Accionar un actuador

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds a mandatory human-confirmation step and the physical/MQTT nature of the effect that no structured field states. It does not cover what happens on an already-active actuator or whether commands can be reversed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the risk warning. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile, but for a destructive real-hardware mutation with 4 parameters the description is thin. It omits duration semantics (is null an indefinite ON?), failure behavior, and any single-vs-bulk routing.

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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not: it never mentions the action enum, the IDs, or the optional duration_seconds window and its default of null. The one genuinely ambiguous parameter (duration) is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (enciende/apaga) and resource (un actuador) plus the transport (MQTT), so the agent knows exactly what the call does. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling send_bulk_command, which is the main neighbouring ambiguity.

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?

There is no statement of when to prefer this single-actuator call over send_bulk_command, nor any exclusion or precondition beyond a bare imperative to confirm. The one actionable hint ('confirma antes') is a safety instruction rather than routing guidance.

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