set_light_properties

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true; the description corroborates idempotency and adds valuable mutation context (partial update, per-type field applicability, note-instead-of-error behavior, return shape). It does not discuss any destructive/reversibility implications despite destructiveHint=true, leaving a small gap.

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-loads the core purpose, then behavioral guarantees, then the return shape. The long comma-delimited property enumeration is somewhat run-on and partly duplicates the schema, but it is appropriately sized for a 31-parameter tool and nothing is truly wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the return shape ({light_name, light_subtype, settings_applied, notes, applied_count}), covers partial-update and idempotency behavior, and points at a read-back verification path. Complete enough to call safely for a tool of this complexity.

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% for all 31 params, so the schema already documents each field's type and light-type applicability. The description groups fields by category, which is mildly useful, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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') and resource ('component-level light properties') and enumerates the property groups it governs, which lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like set_light_color and set_light_intensity. The scope 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?

Explains partial-update semantics ('only fields present are written'), the honest-note behavior for non-applicable fields, and the verify-by-read-back workflow via get_light_properties. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with set_light_color/set_light_intensity, so the alternative-selection guidance is implied rather than stated.

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