toggle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add one useful behavioral fact: it reads current state first (a read-modify-write). It says nothing about whether the toggle is idempotent, what happens if a bulb is offline, or whether the change applies instantly — gaps 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?

One short front-loaded sentence with a parenthetical for the behavioral nuance; nothing redundant and no filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is workable but thin — it omits what the result looks like and any failure/idempotency semantics. Adequate minimum, not 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 coverage is 100% and the single 'target' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'one or more bulbs' lightly reinforces bulk-targeting via 'all', but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (toggle) and resource (power state of WiZ bulbs), with scope made explicit ('one or more'). The verb itself differentiates it cleanly from the turn_on/turn_off siblings without needing to name them.

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 prefer toggle over turn_on/turn_off, or whether it requires the bulb to already be reachable/discovered. Usage is only inferable from the verb, and no alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned.

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