sprut_set_switch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, idempotency, or what happens on an invalid accessory_id. The one behavioral fact it does disclose, the automatic fallback to the first Switch service when service_id is omitted, is genuinely helpful.

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?

A single purpose sentence followed by a compact, front-loaded Args block; every line carries information. The trailing newline/formatting is slightly rough but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and all three parameters are covered. However, for a state-mutating tool with zero annotations, the absence of any error/failure or permission context leaves a real gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: accessory_id gets an example value, on is defined as True=ON/False=OFF, and service_id's optionality and default-resolution behavior are explained. It does not state the valid range/format of service_id beyond 'optional service ID'.

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 specific resources (switch, light, relay), so the agent can immediately tell what changes. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling sprut_set_characteristic, which could plausibly overlap, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description explains how to target the right service when an accessory has multiple switches, which is useful, but never says when to use this tool instead of sprut_set_characteristic or what prerequisites exist. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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