hue_api

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool grants full unrestricted access, which signals powerful, low-level behavior with no guardrails. It further clarifies the path is relative to a specific base route, which helps set expectations about how requests are constructed. It does not detail response formats or error behavior, but the external docs link partially compensates.

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 description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately establishes the tool's purpose and power level; the second gives the path convention, concrete examples, and a documentation link. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a generic raw API tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context: base path, example endpoints, and external documentation. It could additionally mention that responses are raw API payloads and that this tool should be preferred when no dedicated sibling covers the desired call, but the given details are sufficient for an agent to begin using it correctly.

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?

The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful path examples and clarifies the base-relative convention, but it does not meaningfully enhance the semantics of method or body beyond what the schema already provides. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

Description states a specific verb (Make), a resource (arbitrary Philips Hue CLIP v2 API call), and the scope (full unrestricted access to the Hue API). The phrase 'arbitrary' and 'full unrestricted access' clearly distinguishes this raw API tool from the specialized sibling tools like set_light or set_scene.

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 makes the intended context clear: this is a general-purpose raw API access tool for arbitrary endpoints under /route/clip/v2/ with concrete examples. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use it versus specific siblings, but the 'arbitrary and unrestricted' framing implies it is the fallback for calls not covered by specialized tools.

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