set_light_intensity

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (idempotent, not read-only, destructive). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait – that the change is verified and prior state is returned (old_intensity) – but does not explain what 'destructive' means for an intensity change or any auth/permission requirements. Adds some value beyond annotations but not rich behavioral context.

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 action sentence is front-loaded and concise. However, the second sentence dumps a 21-field return tuple verbatim into the description, which is noisy; the intent could have been conveyed far more briefly.

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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully enumerates the return shape so the agent knows it receives verification data (intensity_set, old/new values, light properties). It is adequately complete for a two-parameter setter, though it could note permission/idempotency implications.

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 100% and both parameters (light_name, intensity) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format/syntax detail (e.g. intensity range or units) beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb (set) and resource (intensity value) scoped to a 'specified light actor', which cleanly separates it from siblings like set_light_color or set_light_properties. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for changing a light's intensity. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternatives (set_light_color, set_light_properties) that a sibling-heavy catalog would require for confident routing.

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