shelly_scene_run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses sequential best-effort execution, that a failing action does not abort the rest, the exact status vocabulary (ok/partial/failed), idempotency because scenes use absolute states, and that every action is audit-logged. This is the behavioral context an agent needs before invoking a mutating 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?

Front-loaded with the core action in line one, then structured into behavioral detail. Every sentence carries information; the only mild redundancy is restating 'best-effort and sequential' after the first line already implied it.

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-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still defines the status field semantics, and it covers failure handling and re-run safety. Nothing needed to invoke this one-parameter tool correctly is missing.

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% and the single 'name' parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry the meaning. 'Run a named scene' makes clear the parameter identifies a scene, which is adequate compensation although no naming/format convention is given.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Run a named scene', immediately setting it apart from shelly_scene_list, shelly_scene_get, shelly_scene_create and shelly_scene_delete. The first line alone tells an agent exactly what the tool does.

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?

Explains the execution model (best-effort, sequential) and gives concrete operational guidance: a partial run can simply be re-run later. It does not explicitly contrast with direct-control siblings like shelly_switch_set or shelly_light_set, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than stated.

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