Connect/disconnect a Bluetooth device (verified)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavior: the tool verifies BlueZ state after the operation, which warns the agent that it performs a post-check. It also implies state mutation (connect/disconnect). It doesn't mention error handling or side effects like disconnection of other devices, but the verification step is a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, and includes the verification step without fluff. Every word earns its place, and it's highly 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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core operation and the post-verification behavior. It doesn't describe return values or typical failures, but given the tool's simplicity and the lack of an output schema, it's reasonably complete. Slightly more on expected outcomes would push it to a 5.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'address' to 'MAC address' and 'action' to 'connect/disconnect', which adds meaning beyond the raw schema enum and regex. However, it doesn't elaborate on address format (though schema has a pattern) or explain the action enum values beyond their names. Adequate for a simple 2-parameter tool, but not thorough.

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 uses a specific verb ('Connect to or disconnect') and resource ('a known device by MAC address'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like bluetooth_toggle which toggles the adapter rather than targeting a specific device. It includes the verification step, adding purpose nuance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with bluetooth_toggle or bluetooth_devices, leaving some differentiation implicit.

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 context: connecting to a specific known device by MAC address, as opposed to toggling the adapter (bluetooth_toggle) or listing devices (bluetooth_devices). It says 'known device' which hints at previously paired devices. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives by name, so there's room for clearer routing.

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