shelly_scene_create

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does well: it discloses the validation rules (methods must be non-destructive mutating methods, devices must be known), the name-collision failure mode and the overwrite escape hatch, and the Toggle warning. Missing only what happens to an existing scene that is overwritten.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the definition and followed by validation constraints and the preference rule. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 return values need not be described, and the description covers creation semantics, failure modes and content constraints. The only gap is the undocumented optional 'description' field.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the actions element structure as {device, method, params}, the semantic of name, and the effect of overwrite=true. Only the optional 'description' parameter goes unexplained.

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 precise verb ('Define (save)') and resource ('a named scene') plus the shape of the input it consumes, so an agent can immediately separate it from shelly_scene_run, shelly_scene_get and shelly_scene_delete in the sibling list.

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?

Gives concrete operating conditions: fails if the name already exists unless overwrite=true, and prefer absolute Set methods over Toggle. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g. scene_run for execution, scene_delete for removal), so the when-to-use-this-instead-of-that routing is left to inference.

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