polynodes_tuning_res_switch

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation,' which is largely redundant given an output schema exists, and says nothing about required connection state or persistence of the setting.

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 one-line purpose is front-loaded and waste-free, but the Args/Returns boilerplate contributes almost nothing ('params: state', 'JSON confirmation') and pads a very short definition.

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 on/off switch with an output schema, this is minimally adequate: the state polarity is documented in the schema and return values are covered by the output schema. However, what 'tuning scale application' actually affects on the resonator is never clarified, leaving the agent guessing at the audible/functional consequence.

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 reported as 0% at the parameter level and the description only says 'params: state,' which merely restates the schema key. It adds no meaning (e.g., confirming the 0/1 polarity or default) beyond what the agent can read in the schema, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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/off) and a specific resource (tuning scale application on the resonator filter), which distinguishes it from the plain resonator switch and the pitch-bend tuning switch among siblings. It never names those siblings, so differentiation requires the agent to already know the family.

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?

No indication of when to enable versus disable this, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives like polynodes_resonator_switch or polynodes_tuning_pb_switch. 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.