control_switch

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. The description implies a state mutation (on/off) but doesn't mention confirmation of the action, error behavior when the device is offline/unreachable, latency expectations, or whether the tool returns a status result. For a control tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is warranted.

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?

One concise sentence carries the core purpose, and a second sentence covers identification. No wasted words. Could be slightly extended to include behavioral notes given the lack of annotations, but as written it is efficiently structured.

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 device-control tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what happens after the command (return value, confirmation), how to discover device IDs (though list_devices sibling exists), or handle failures. Among the sibling tools, this is a straightforward toggle, but the description still leaves the agent guessing about result semantics and failure modes.

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%, so both parameters (deviceId and state) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds minor value by clarifying the dual identification method (device ID or nickname) for deviceId, but doesn't add semantic depth beyond the schema's enum and descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a clear verb+resource construct: 'Turn a Wyze wall switch on or off.' It identifies the resource (wall switch) and the action (on/off toggle). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling control_plug or control_purifier beyond the word 'switch,' which creates minor ambiguity about which device type it controls.

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 context by specifying it controls a wall switch and that device ID or nickname can identify the switch. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over control_plug or other siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., device must be online).

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