switch_device

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action and target, but does not explain side effects on playback state, behavior when the device name is invalid or unavailable, whether the operation is reversible, or any authentication/device prerequisites.

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 description is a single concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and directly references the parameter, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

The tool itself is simple with only one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, it leaves out important contextual details such as how to obtain a valid device name, what happens if the target device does not exist, and whether playback must already be running. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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 for the undocumented parameter. It does clarify that the 'name' parameter refers to the target device's name, but it does not specify where valid device names come from, whether the name is case-sensitive, or how to handle multiple devices with the same name.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Transfer playback') and a clear target resource ('the device with the given name'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_devices or play, since it is about redirecting playback to an existing device rather than listing or starting content.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites such as listing available devices first or ensuring playback is active. The description provides no exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context on its own.

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