assign_switch

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

It discloses that the tool computes µs ranges, writes one aux assignment per mode, and defaults to dry-run, plus critical gates. With no annotations, this description carries the full burden and meets it well.

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 structured and front-loaded: first sentence states purpose, then behavioral notes, then a clear Args list. No filler sentences.

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?

It covers purpose, behavior, preconditions, and parameters comprehensively. It omits return value/error handling, but the absence is not critical for a tool that is primarily an action. Overall, it's near-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 has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description compensates by detailing each parameter: switch_channel's 1-based AUX numbering, switch_positions' allowed values (2, 3, 6), mode_per_position's key formats and example, and confirm's default. This is high-value addition.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Map a multi-position switch's detents to flight modes in one call.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like set_flight_mode by focusing on multi-position mapping and mass assignment.

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?

It states the context: 'Dry-run by default' and 'Gates: connected, not armed, auto-backup before write,' which inform when it's safe to run. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the one-call mapping purpose is clear.

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