set_locator_led

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a mutation action ('Turn... on or off') and the physical purpose, but lacks details on permissions required, potential side effects (e.g., if it affects server operation), or error conditions. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks details on behavioral aspects like permissions or response format. It covers the purpose and usage context adequately but could benefit from more transparency for safe invocation.

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 100%, with the parameter 'state' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add specific parameter details beyond implying the LED control, but since there is only one parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is high. The description's context ('physically identify a server') adds slight 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?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Turn... on or off') and the target resource ('server locator LED'), with the additional context that it's 'Used to physically identify a server in a rack.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that are primarily for reading data (e.g., get_bios_settings, get_firmware_versions) or other actions like power_control.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Used to physically identify a server in a rack'), which implies it should be used for hardware identification purposes. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the siblings, such as distinguishing from power_control for broader server control.

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