control_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool 'works with' specific device types and controls 'switchable devices', but lacks details on behavioral traits like required permissions, error handling, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose ('Turn a switch or relay on or off') and efficiently adds context about device compatibility and usage scope, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and device scope but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output expectations. It's adequate as a minimum viable description but has clear gaps for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters (appliance_id, state, model). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('turn on or off'), the target ('switch or relay'), and the scope ('Plugwise switches, relays, and smart plugs'). It specifies the resource type but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_gateway_mode' or 'set_preset', which also control devices but for different purposes.

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 usage by stating 'Works with Plugwise switches, relays, and smart plugs' and 'Use this to control any switchable device', providing context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as distinguishing from 'set_preset' for temperature-related controls.

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