set_vibe

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

With no annotations, the description only communicates that this is a mutating operation across the user's lights. It does not disclose whether the operation replaces existing light state, requires authentication, can partially fail, or returns a confirmation. The 'Claude should determine...' line describes request construction rather than tool 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?

Three short sentences front-load the action and then explain the input and the agent's role in selecting values. There is no repetitive filler; every sentence contributes either scope or invocation logic.

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?

Given full schema coverage for both required parameters and a straightforward input shape, the description provides enough to invoke the tool correctly, including the instruction to derive per-light settings from the vibe. It falls slightly short because there are no annotations and no output schema, leaving return behavior and side effects unmentioned, but this is a moderate gap.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by defining the relationship between the vibe string and the lights array ('colors and brightness ... based on the vibe description'), telling the agent how to populate color_hex and brightness. This cross-field guidance goes beyond the individual property descriptions.

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 action ('Set') and a target resource ('your lights'), and clarifies the input pattern of a vibe plus an array of matching light settings. It is not a tautology and is more specific than the bare name, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_light, set_all_lights, 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 tells the agent to provide a vibe description and an array of light settings, and instructs it to determine colors and brightness from the vibe. There is implied context for multi-light vibe setting, but no explicit statement of when to choose this over alternatives, and no exclusions.

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