set_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what effects do, how to stop them, and that it can target one light or all lights. It does not, however, mention whether the effect overrides existing scenes or states, what happens on invalid light IDs, or any persistence behavior.

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 compact: two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, supported effects are enumerated, the stop behavior is included, and targeting scope is stated. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter command with a fully documented schema, the description covers the essential information: what to set, valid values, how to stop, and targeting scope. It could be more complete by explicitly naming the sibling tools it is not, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (100% coverage), including the effect enum and the optional light_id behavior. The description adds some human-friendly elaboration ('candle flicker', 'fireplace', 'rainbow') but does not materially go beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the action and resource: 'Set a native Hue light effect' with specific supported effect names. It is clear enough to be distinguished from set_light and set_all_lights, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those sibling tools.

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 gives useful context: this is for native Hue effects, includes the supported effect names, and explains how to stop with 'no_effect'. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives like set_light, set_all_lights, or animate_lights, leaving some routing judgment to the agent.

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