Set switch state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the preference for `idx` and the cross-reference, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or what happens when both idx and name are provided. With annotations covering the core safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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: one sentence plus a cross-reference. Every word earns its place, and the key preference (`idx`) is front-loaded. No wasted text.

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 3-parameter tool with a full schema and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it does not explain the relationship between `idx` and `name` when both are provided, but the schema and the preference statement cover most of what an agent needs.

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 already documents all three parameters. The description adds the preference for `idx` over `name`, which is useful, but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the `state` parameter. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does 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 states a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('switch state') with the allowed values 'On'/'Off', which is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like set_dimmer_level or set_color_brightness, but the 'switch state' phrasing and the cross-reference to toggle_switch provide enough differentiation.

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 gives a clear preference for using `idx` over `name` and cross-references `toggle_switch` as an alternative. It does not explicitly state when to use toggle_switch instead, but the cross-reference implies a related but distinct operation, which is adequate guidance.

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