areas_control_area

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

The description discloses the core behavior: it affects multiple entities. However, it omits details like atomicity, error handling, permissions required, or side effects. With no annotations, the description should provide more depth.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extra words. It front-loads the main action and lists the possible action values. Every sentence adds value.

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 the existence of output schema, the description could have explained the response. It does not differentiate from sibling tools or mention scope limitations (e.g., domain must be known). More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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 description lists possible values for 'action' but does not define 'area_id' or 'domain' beyond the default. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but falls short. No parameter descriptions are given.

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 states the tool's function: 'Turn on/off/toggle all entities of a domain in an area.' It uses specific verbs and identifies the resource (entities in an area by domain), differentiating it from sibling tools like entities_turn_on that target single entities.

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 use for batch control of entities in an area, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., entities_turn_on for a single entity). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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