group_toggle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the state transition for each channel and that non-masked channels remain unaffected. However, it does not mention return value, error behavior, or prerequisite conditions such as needing an established connection, which are minor gaps.

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 with a clear structure: operation, mask-based targeting, and the constraint that other channels remain unchanged. It is front-loaded and every part adds value without redundancy.

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 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and parameter semantics adequately. It does not explain return values or connection requirements, but these are not critical for a straightforward toggle action and are likely covered by sibling tools or environment context.

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% for the 2 parameters (mask and address), so the baseline is 3. The description adds some meaning by connecting the mask to the toggle operation, but it does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already explains, such as the binary bit semantics or address range.

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 states a specific verb ('翻转' - toggle) and resource (指定继电器状态 - specified relay states), and explicitly defines the behavior: 断开→吸合, 吸合→断开, with other channels unchanged. This clearly distinguishes group_toggle from sibling tools like set_relays_by_mask or all_relays_on which set states rather than invert them.

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: use this when you need to flip selected relays while leaving others untouched. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or contrast with sibling tools like group_connect/group_disconnect, nor does it state when not to use it. The context is clear but no direct guidance is provided.

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