alpaca_switch_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful prerequisite (must connect first) but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, or error behavior. The prerequisite adds value, but the description remains sparse for a state-changing tool.

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 concise and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, one for the prerequisite note. No wasted words, and the structure is effective.

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 the simple tool and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. However, it misses the distinction between this boolean state setter and alpaca_switch_set_value (which likely handles analog values), and it doesn't indicate any return values or error conditions. The prerequisite note is helpful but doesn't fully cover the operational context.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Set the state of a switch') and the resource ('ASCOM Alpaca switch device'). It distinguishes itself from status and value-setting siblings by using 'state' rather than 'value' or 'status', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 only guidance is a prerequisite note that the device must be connected first. It does not explain when to use this tool versus alpaca_switch_set_value or other switch-related tools, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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