assembly_set_occurrence_state

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully communicates the operational behavior (ground/visibility change) and provides the precise return structure, which adds valuable behavioral context beyond the input schema.

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 definition is brief and efficient. It uses two concise sentences and an example to convey the core functionality, constraints, and expected output without unnecessary fluff.

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 lack of annotations, the description is highly complete. It covers the primary actions, the required arguments, and the expected response format, leaving no ambiguity for the agent.

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 clear descriptions for all parameters. The description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents, though it correctly notes which properties are actionable.

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 defines the action (Ground/unground/switch light bulb) and the resource (an occurrence). It is specific enough to distinguish this state-setting tool from generic assembly modification tools in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'Pass at least one of grounded, light_bulb' serves as a mandatory usage constraint, preventing the agent from calling the tool without necessary parameters. The provided example also clarifies correct usage.

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