control_purifier

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Control' implies mutation/destructive state changes, and the description is honest that it sets state. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, whether partial updates are allowed (e.g., setting only fan mode), or any connectivity/error behavior. It adequately signals it's a write operation but lacks depth.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey purpose and key usage detail (device identification methods). No wasted words. Slightly more explicit behavior detail could be added, but as written it's tight and readable.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description could be more complete. It explains the core action and device identification but doesn't note whether state and fanMode can be combined, whether omitting fanMode preserves current fan setting, or what the return/response looks like. Adequate but leaves behavioral gaps for a 3-parameter control tool.

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%, with each parameter having its own description in the schema. The description adds marginal value by noting devices can be identified by deviceId, MAC, or nickname, which clarifies the deviceId parameter's dual nature beyond the schema's 'MAC or nickname' text. However, this largely repeats schema content.

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+resource ('Control a Wyze air purifier') and identifies the actions (set power state and/or fan mode), distinguishing it from sibling tools like control_plug and control_switch which target different device types. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives for 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 implies usage by stating what can be controlled (power state and fan mode) and how to identify the device (device ID or nickname). It does not provide explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or exclusions, though the device-type-specific language in sibling names provides context.

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