control_plug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool turns the plug on/off but doesn't describe what happens on failure (offline device, invalid ID/nickname), whether the operation is synchronous or returns confirmation, or any side effects. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single efficient sentence that packs the action, target resource, and the two parameters into minimal words. Zero waste, appropriately front-loaded.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation action (on/off), the tool should disclose more about behavior like error handling and confirmation semantics. Sibling tools include control_switch and control_purifier, which raises ambiguity about which tool controls which device type. The description is technically complete for a simple two-param binary switch but lacks operational detail.

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% — both deviceId and state are already described in the schema with clear descriptions and an enum for state. The description notes that deviceId accepts either a MAC or nickname, which does add minor value beyond the schema. This meets the baseline-3 threshold given full schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Turn a Wyze plug on or off.' The verb 'turn on/off' plus the resource 'Wyze plug' is specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like control_switch or control_purifier, but the resource (plug) provides differentiation, earning a 4 rather than 5.

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 notes that either device ID or nickname can be used to identify the plug, which is mildly helpful for usage. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like control_switch or control_thermostat, nor does it mention prerequisites like the plug needing to be online or paired.

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