polynodes_comb_switch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation', which is thin and partially redundant given an output schema exists; it says nothing about whether toggling affects existing comb settings or what errors occur if the level is invalid.

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 operative instruction is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the Args/Returns scaffolding is compact. The Returns line contributes little value, but nothing is bloated or buried.

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 idempotent boolean toggle with an output schema available, the core action is conveyed. However, it omits the invalid-level/error behavior and the level-to-layer terminology mapping, leaving the agent to guess at edge conditions.

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?

The 'params: level and state' line merely restates the parameter names without adding meaning beyond the schema. With schema description coverage reported at 0%, the description is expected to compensate for the undocumented parameters, and it does not explain valid levels or the boolean-like state semantics.

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 first line states a concrete verb and resource ('Turn comb filter on/off'), which is clearly distinct from sibling setters like polynodes_set_comb_delay and polynodes_set_comb_mod_range. The only wrinkle is the term 'layer' in the description versus 'level' (macro/meso/micro) in the schema, an inconsistency the description never reconciles.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus polynodes_filter_switch, polynodes_resonator_switch, or the other *_switch siblings, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing comb delay set first). The usage is only implied by the tool name.

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