set_all_lights

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain whether omitted parameters preserve current values, whether at least one parameter is required, or what the broader side effects of changing all lights are. This is a bulk mutation tool, and important behavioral context is missing.

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 short, dense sentences with no filler. The core statement comes first, and the capability summary adds just enough detail without repeating schema content unnecessarily.

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 simple interface, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description alone must fully prepare an agent to call it. It lacks guidance on required inputs, omitted-parameter behavior, and the distinction from similar tools. It is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds only a high-level mapping ('on/off, brightness, color') without any extra semantic detail, such as how parameters interact or whether they are optional collectively. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('all Hue lights'), and a clear scope ('same state'). It also lists the controllable dimensions (on/off, brightness, color), making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from siblings like set_light.

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 phrase 'all Hue lights' implies the tool is appropriate when targeting every light at once, rather than an individual light. However, it does not explicitly contrast with set_light, set_scene, or other alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it.

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