polynodes_resonator_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 structurally. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation', which is redundant with the output schema, and does not disclose any behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the action, with no padding. The boilerplate Args/Returns block is minimal, though the Args line is too terse to be useful.

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 boolean-style switch with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers the core purpose adequately. But it omits any routing guidance among ~40 siblings and any note that the state value is numeric 0/1, leaving it only minimally viable.

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 description's 'params: state' is a vague and arguably inaccurate restatement, since the schema shows params is an object containing a state field. The actual semantic detail (0.0 = off, 1.0 = on) lives in the schema's nested property description, not the tool description, so the description adds nothing here.

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?

States a specific verb ('Turn on or off') and a specific resource ('Resonator'), which is enough to distinguish it from the many other *_switch siblings by name. It doesn't explicitly call out how it differs from e.g. polynodes_filter_switch, but the resource naming does the work.

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 tool versus the other switch tools, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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