switch_set_poe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states the read-modify-write sequence, that only on/off changes while priority/limit are re-sent, the post-write verification, the WRITE_VERIFY_FAILED / NOT_POE_PORT / PROTECTED_PORT outcomes, the env-var gating that produces no network call, and dry-run behavior returning the exact form.

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 mutating nature and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence adds operative detail (effects, error codes, gating, dry-run) rather than filler. It is dense flattened prose with several stacked clauses, so it is effective but not maximally scannable.

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 gated, no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, it covers prerequisites, side effects, failure modes and dry-run semantics thoroughly. It stops short of describing the success return payload or pagination-style output expectations, which larger context would warrant.

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 coverage is only 33% (port and enabled are undocumented in the schema), so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'enabled' means on/off only and that confirm_write must be the JSON boolean true, but it leaves the port parameter's accepted formats (integer vs string/name) unexplained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'MUTATES PoE on one port.' The mutation framing and 'changes only on/off' clearly separate it from read siblings like switch_get_poe and from switch_poe_cycle, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of the top tier.

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?

It gives real preconditions and refusal conditions (non-PoE port, protected port, EASYSMART_ALLOW_WRITES, confirm_write), which is useful context. However it never says when to prefer this over switch_poe_cycle or switch_set_port, so the when-to-use-vs-alternatives guidance is only implied.

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