Set switch actions

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the crucial behavioral constraint that confirm=True is required, which goes beyond the raw annotation flags and helps the agent avoid a destructive mistake. It doesn't enumerate reversibility or overwrite semantics, but the annotations plus schema cover most of that.

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 only two short sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then gives the two most decision-relevant details: idx preference and confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant restating.

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 destructive, confirmation-gated write tool, the description plus annotations and 100% covered schema are sufficient. The output schema exists, so return details need not be described. It could arguably name sibling alternatives more explicitly, but the definition is already enough to invoke correctly.

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 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by stating that idx is preferred (over name) and by elevating confirm from an ordinary boolean to a mandatory requirement. This adds invocation-level semantics that are not fully encoded in the schema's default values.

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 states a specific verb ('Configure') and a concrete resource ('switch On Action and Off Action URLs or scripts'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_switch_actions, toggle_switch, and set_switch_state, so the agent can infer its purpose without opening the schema.

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 gives clear invocation context by specifying that idx is preferred and that confirm=True is mandatory for this high-impact operation. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to exclude, but the first sentence establishes the correct arena and the subsequent constraints guide correct invocation.

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