shelly_light_set

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

With only idempotentHint=true in the annotations, the description carries meaningful extra load: partial-update semantics ("Only the provided fields are changed"), the post-action return (LightState), and the audit-logging trait of a write operation. It stops short of stating permission requirements or failure modes.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, then behavioral and parameter detail follows in compact sentences with no waste. The generation-mapping parenthetical is dense but short.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be re-explained, and the description correctly covers update semantics and audit logging. However, for an 8-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage, half the parameters and any auth/prerequisite context remain undocumented.

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 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents brightness (0-100), rgb (three 0-255 values) and temp_k (white colour temperature), but leaves on, white, channel, transition_s, and the required device parameter unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (Set) plus the exact resource and channel types (light/dimmer/RGB(W)/CCT), which cleanly separates it from shelly_switch_set, shelly_cover_move and shelly_rpc_write. An agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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 channel-type phrasing implies when to reach for this tool versus switch/cover siblings, but no alternative is named and no when-not condition is given. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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