toggle_outlet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (changing to the opposite state) and the return value ('return the new state'). It also provides a useful constraint that outlet_id must be 'as returned by list_outlets.' This goes beyond a generic 'toggle' statement, though it does not cover error cases or side effects beyond the state change.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a concise Args section. No unnecessary words or repetition. The front-loaded first sentence immediately conveys the tool's action.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to supply the ID, and that it returns the new state. It could have mentioned alternatives for completeness, but for a toggle operation this is sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so by clarifying the single parameter: 'outlet_id: The outlet's id, as returned by list_outlets.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's title 'Outlet Id' by specifying the source and expected format, which is valuable for correct invocation.

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 tool's function: 'Flip an outlet to the opposite of its current state and return the new state.' This uses a specific verb ('flip') and resource ('outlet'), and distinguishes it from siblings like set_outlet (which sets a specific state) and get_outlet (which reads state).

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 describing the toggle behavior, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of 'use this instead of set_outlet when you want to flip state' or exclusions. Sibling tools exist, but no contrast is provided.

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