control_device

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Send a command' without disclosing side effects, success/failure responses, or prerequisites such as device availability. The examples show parameter usage but not what happens on execution, leaving significant gaps.

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 main action is stated upfront in a single sentence, followed by illustrative examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the examples take some space; they are justified by their instructional value.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, prerequisite, and invocation patterns, which is solid for a simple control tool. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it fails to mention what the tool returns or how errors are surfaced, which is a notable omission for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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?

Although the schema already provides descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), the description enriches understanding with concrete examples: 'turnOn' without parameter, 'setBrightness' with '50', and 'setColor' with '255:0:0'. This adds practical meaning beyond the schema's generic Japanese text.

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 'Send a command to a SwitchBot device by name,' with a specific verb and resource. The examples differentiate it from sibling tools like list_devices and execute_scene, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Use list_devices first to see available commands for each device,' providing a clear prerequisite and contextualizing when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like execute_scene, but the command-sending scope is clear.

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