alpaca_switch_set_value

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action and the connection prerequisite, but does not mention potential error conditions, whether the switch must support writes, reversibility, or what the response indicates. For a mutation tool, this lack of detail is a significant 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?

The description is two sentences, action-first, and contains no redundant information. Every word earns its place, including the prerequisite note.

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 relatively simple setter with well-documented schema, the description includes the essential prerequisite and is reasonably complete. However, it omits any return value expectation, does not clarify the meaning of 'value', and the existing sibling 'alpaca_switch_set' creates potential confusion that the description does not resolve.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic meaning about the parameters, such as what 'value' represents (e.g., boolean vs. numeric range) or how 'switch_id' maps to physical switches.

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 value of a switch') and the resource ('ASCOM Alpaca switch device'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling tool 'alpaca_switch_set', which appears to serve an overlapping function.

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 explicitly provides a required prerequisite: 'Device must be connected first using alpaca_device_connect', which gives clear context for when the tool can be invoked. It does not, however, discuss alternatives or exclusions, such as when alpaca_switch_set would be more appropriate.

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