toggle_bluetooth

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, signaling a non-idempotent mutation. The description merely restates the action without adding behavioral context beyond that—e.g., potential side effects like disconnecting paired devices, requiring root/admin privileges, or affecting other Bluetooth operations. It adds little beyond the structured hints.

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, direct sentence with no redundant words. The action is front-loaded and there is zero fluff, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 toggle with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. However, it omits any mention of potential error conditions, permission requirements, or state after execution (e.g., whether connections are preserved). Given the low complexity, these are minor, but the absence of any additional context prevents a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameter. It effectively does: 'enable or disable' implicitly maps the boolean 'enabled' to true=enable and false=disable. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only provides the name and type.

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 ('Enable or disable') and resource ('Bluetooth radio'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bluetooth_devices or pair_bluetooth_device. It unambiguously conveys the tool's purpose with no ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not compare itself to alternative Bluetooth tools (e.g., list_bluetooth_devices, pair_bluetooth_device, toggle_wifi) or state conditions under which it should be preferred. An agent receives no routing hints to avoid misuse.

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