polynodes_whitehole_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 without the description. The description adds only 'Returns: JSON confirmation', which is thin and partially redundant given an output schema exists; it does not clarify what toggling the 'interactable' actually affects.

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 core sentence is short and front-loaded, but the trailing 'Args:'/'Returns:' docstring block is boilerplate that earns little, especially since an output schema already exists. No wasted verbosity, but no economy of information either.

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?

Output schema and annotations together cover return values and safety, so the definition is technically callable. However, it leaves the distinction from polynodes_whitehole_force and the meaning of the 'interactable' concept unexplained, which matters in a family of 40+ near-identical switch tools.

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?

With reported schema description coverage at 0%, the description must carry the parameter burden, but it only echoes the field name ('params: state'). The meaningful mapping (0.0 = off, 1.0 = on) lives in the schema, not the description, so it adds essentially no semantic value.

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 ('White Hole DSP interactable'), which cleanly separates it from both non-switch siblings like polynodes_whitehole_force and the parallel polynodes_blackhole_switch. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the many other switch tools, no prerequisites, no mention of sequencing (e.g., relative to polynodes_whitehole_force). The only usage cue is the on/off semantics, which the schema already supplies.

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