tuya_turn_on_device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that the device can be identified by ID or name, and that switch_code controls which switch is activated. It doesn't address edge cases like already-on behavior, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a simple turn-on action.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, and efficiently packs the switch_code nuance. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists and there are only two parameters, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and multi-switch handling adequately. It doesn't mention error scenarios, but that is not critical for a straightforward command.

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% with no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains that device_id can be either an ID or a friendly name, and adds meaning to switch_code by explaining its purpose for multi-switch devices with examples (switch_1, switch_2). This goes well beyond the raw 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?

The description clearly states "Turn on a Tuya device" with specific targeting by device_id or name, distinguishing it from siblings like tuya_turn_off_device or tuya_toggle_device. The switch_code detail further clarifies the tool's specific role for multi-switch devices.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to turn on a device) and offers explicit guidance for multi-switch devices by specifying switch_code. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like toggle, but the action is singular and well-separated from siblings.

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