animate_lights

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal important traits: the animation runs in the background, cycles through phases, and is stoppable via stop_animation. However, it omits other behavioral details an agent might need — what happens when cycles complete (auto-stop or persists?), whether calling this interrupts an existing animation, and what side effects occur on lights currently showing a static scene.

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?

Four sentences, all earning their place: core action, phase composition, use-case examples, AI generation guidance, and lifecycle/stopping behavior. The most decision-relevant info is front-loaded; examples are compact and illustrative rather than bloated.

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?

The tool has a moderately complex nested phases parameter, 5 total parameters, and no output schema. The description covers the main lifecycle concerns (background execution, stop mechanism) and usage context well. Remaining gaps: prerequisites are not mentioned (light IDs presumably come from list_lights), and with no output schema, the return/acknowledgment behavior after invocation is never addressed. These are notable but non-critical omissions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema: it instructs the AI to 'generate creative phases based on the vibe description,' which operationalizes the vibe parameter in a way the schema's dry 'Optional vibe description for context' does not. It also frames the phases concept ('Each phase defines colors/brightness for each light') in a way that helps an agent construct well-formed phase arrays.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Animate lights through a sequence of color phases') that clearly identifies the mechanism. It distinguishes itself from siblings: static set tools (set_light, set_all_lights, set_scene) which don't animate, and stop_animation which is explicitly referenced as the complementary tool. Vibe examples ('lava flow', 'ocean waves', 'disco') further ground the purpose.

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 description provides clear usage context: it's for dynamic, time-varying light sequences ('cycles through them with smooth transitions') and explicitly names the sibling tool that stops it (stop_animation). However, it never explicitly states when NOT to use it — e.g., no direct statement that static settings should use set_light or set_scene instead. The guidance is good but the exclusion 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.