toggle_output

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

There are no annotations, so the description is the only disclosure. It simply says 'toggle' without revealing whether it errors on non-existent outputs, if it is idempotent, or what the return value is. This is insufficient for a mutation tool and adds little beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and gets to the point, earning its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits usage context (e.g., when to toggle vs start/stop), valid output names, and potential side effects, making it incomplete for reliable selection and 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 0%. The description mentions 'named output' but does not explain that output_name corresponds to names from get_output_list or any constraints. It adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's property title, failing to compensate for the lack of schema detail.

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 the verb 'toggle' and the resource 'output', clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like start_output and stop_output by implying a state flip, and from specific toggles (e.g., toggle_virtual_cam) by being generic over named outputs.

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 is provided on when to choose this over start_output/stop_output or other toggles. The description lacks any context about selecting an output name or checking current state first, so an agent gets no help in deciding between alternatives.

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