Set power

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 reveals the output is a state change (on/off) but does not disclose edge cases like whether players are discoverable, whether power state toggles or forces state, or any side effects such as stopping playback.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that fully conveys the core action without wasted words. It is perfectly sized for the simplicity of the operation.

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 and 2 parameters, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not describe return values, error cases, or interaction with other player states, which an agent might need when deciding whether powering off is safe or how to verify success.

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 description adds little beyond the schema, which already documents 'player' with a useful description. However, the required 'on' boolean has no description in the schema, and the tool description does not clarify its meaning beyond the title, so 50% coverage is only partially compensated.

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 'Turn a player on or off' clearly states a specific verb and resource, making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like play_music or queue_edit by focusing on the binary power state of a player, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_repeat_shuffle or play_music. The description does not mention prerequisites like needing to know the player's current state or how this relates to other player controls.

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