Toggle switch

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

Annotations already signal mutation and destructiveness, so the description adds little behavioral context beyond the word 'toggle', which is already in the title. It does not explain what happens with unknown device states, how the current state is determined, or any side effects beyond what annotations indicate.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. Each fragment serves a purpose, though the overall terseness limits the amount of useful guidance it conveys.

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 two-parameter toggle with an output schema and annotations, this is minimally viable. It lacks an explicit statement that at least one identifier is normally needed and does not clarify how toggling differs from set_switch_state, but the simple domain and rich structured metadata compensate somewhat.

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% and already explains that idx is preferred over name and that name is case-insensitive. The description merely repeats 'Preferred: idx', adding no new parameter semantics.

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 action ('toggle') and resource ('device'), and it indicates that idx is preferred. It does not explicitly contrast with set_switch_state, so it stops short of fully differentiating itself from a sibling tool.

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 only guidance is 'Preferred: idx', which addresses parameter selection rather than when to use this tool versus set_switch_state. The 'Cross-ref' note points to a related tool but provides no condition or exclusion to help an agent choose between them.

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