ha_turn_on

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action of turning something on. It does not explain side effects, idempotency, confirmation requirements, or what happens if the entity is already on.

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 concise sentence with no filler, and the main action is front-loaded. It is structurally efficient, even though other dimensions suffer from the lack of detail.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and two required parameters, the description is too incomplete for reliable invocation. The required 'confirm' parameter and usage context are missing entirely.

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 0%, and the description does not compensate. 'entity_id' is inferable from the word 'entidad', but the required 'confirm' parameter is completely unexplained, leaving its format, allowed values, and purpose unknown.

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 'Enciende una entidad' clearly states the action (turn on) and the resource (entity), which is enough to distinguish it from ha_turn_off. However, it is very terse and does not add scope or any differentiating context beyond the verb itself.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like ha_turn_off, ha_call_service, or ha_run_script. The description implies usage only through the verb, but offers no conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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