tuya_turn_off_device

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the action and multi-switch behavior but does not mention side effects, errors, reversibility, prerequisites, or behavior when the device is already off. For a mutating tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately useful details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 straightforward device-control tool, the description covers the essential selection/invocation context: identifying the device, multi-switch handling, and the default switch_code. An output schema exists to document return values, so the lack of return-value detail is acceptable. It only misses broader operational context like error or safety behavior.

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 descriptions cover 0% of parameters, so the description must add meaning. It explains device_id can be a name (with example) and specifies switch_code values ('switch_1, switch_2, etc.'), going beyond the raw schema. This compensates well for the two-parameter schema.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Turn off') and resource ('a Tuya device'), specifies how to identify the device (device_id or name) with an example, and indicates multi-switch handling. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like tuya_turn_on_device and tuya_toggle_device.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tuya_toggle_device or tuya_turn_on_device. It only gives context about multi-switch devices, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative recommendations.

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