set_bluetooth_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the parameter values, but it does not mention any side effects, prerequisites (e.g., Bluetooth hardware availability), or potential failures. While the operation is simple, the lack of any behavioral context beyond the action is a gap, though not fatal.

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 extremely concise, using just two sentences, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple toggle tool, with no unnecessary fluff.

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 simplicity, the description covers the essence. However, it lacks context about the tool's place in the broader Bluetooth workflow. It does not mention that this tool is for power management, distinct from pairing or status checks. It also doesn't specify the return value, but an output schema exists, which might cover that. Still, a bit more context would be helpful.

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?

The input schema already provides a clear enum of 'on' and 'off', and the description explains those values in words. However, schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema has no additional descriptions, but the enum is self-explanatory. The description adds minimal value beyond the enum, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the parameter.

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 tool's purpose: 'Turn Bluetooth on or off.' This is a specific verb with a clear resource, and it distinguishes itself from related Bluetooth tools like get_bluetooth_status and start_bluetooth_pairing. It is concise and unambiguous.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool (when you need to toggle Bluetooth power) and what actions are possible ('on' or 'off'). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling tools (get_bluetooth_status, start_bluetooth_pairing) cover other aspects, and the context is clear enough for an agent.

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