set_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals the fallback behavior of listing available scenes when the exact name is not found, but it does not disclose other important traits like authentication requirements, side effects beyond activation, or what a successful response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action first and the fallback behavior second. There is no wasted language, and the key 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 simple single-parameter tool, this description is reasonably complete: it states the action, the input scope, and the behavior when the name is not found. It could be more complete by noting authentication prerequisites or success/error output, but these are minor gaps given the tool's low 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?

The schema already fully documents the single 'scene_name' parameter at 100% coverage, so the description adds little parameter-level detail beyond restating the name-based activation concept. This meets the baseline for adequate schema documentation.

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 ('Activate') and clear resource ('a Hue scene by name'), which immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_light or list_lights. It also mentions a fallback behavior (listing scenes) that further clarifies its scope.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a Hue scene needs to be activated by name. However, it does not explicitly discuss alternatives or exclusionary conditions, such as when set_vibe or set_light would be more appropriate.

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