group_connect

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It reveals one key behavior: '其余通道保持原状态不变' (other channels retain their original state), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or return values, and does not mention the optional address parameter's behavior.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes a critical behavioral qualifier. 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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description plus schema provide sufficient context to use the tool. It explains the core action and the key non-effect, though it does not mention prerequisites like setting up a connection, which are handled by sibling tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, such as the mask bit mapping or address range. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 '组吸合' (group latch) and resource '继电器' (relays), and clearly states the scope: according to the mask, specified relays are latched while others remain unchanged. This distinguishes it from siblings like set_relays_by_mask which might set all relays, and group_disconnect which does the opposite.

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 a use case (partial update of relay states) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_relays_by_mask or group_toggle. No exclusions or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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