turn_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a state-changing action and constrains the target to switch-mode bots, but it does not disclose behavior when the device is already on, error cases, or response details. This is adequate but has 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 description is a single clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It front-loads the action and identifies valid device types efficiently.

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 one-parameter control action with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and device scope. It does not mention edge cases or return behavior, but the simplicity of the operation means this is nearly complete.

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 has 100% coverage for the single deviceId parameter, with the description 'Device ID or device name.' The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 clear action ('Turn on') and a specific resource ('a SwitchBot Plug Mini or a Bot in switch mode'), and the scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like turn_off and press_bot. This is precise enough for an agent to understand exactly what the tool does.

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 implies usage for switch-mode devices and differentiates from press_bot by mentioning switch mode, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude non-switch-mode bots. The usage guidance is inferable rather than explicit.

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