polynodes_granular_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/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation,' which is thin given an output schema exists, and restates the state mapping already in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded and very short, with the core behavior stated first. The boilerplate 'Args:'/'Returns:' scaffolding is slightly wasteful but not distracting.

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 single-parameter toggle with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the essential mapping and a return indication. It could say more about the wrapper object, but nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing.

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 top-level 'params' wrapper has no schema description (coverage 0%), so the description usefully clarifies that params carries 'state' with 1.0=on and 0.0=off, compensating for the wrapper's opacity. However it adds no format or type detail beyond what the nested SwitchInput already documents.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource ('Turn the granulator on or off'), distinguishing it from the many sibling switch tools targeting other effects (filter_switch, comb_switch, etc.). It does not name an alternative or exclusion, but the resource name is unambiguous.

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 other switch tools or when toggling is appropriate. The 'Args:' line just restates the schema rather than providing selection criteria.

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