Activate a scene

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the exact backend service invoked (scene.turn_on) and the return shape, which goes beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded lines: action, mechanism, return. No filler, and the most important information (what it does) leads.

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 single-parameter action tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema present, this is largely complete. The return-value line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, and it omits error/failure behavior, keeping it just under a 5.

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% and the single entity_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example format. The description merely restates that entity_id is passed to scene.turn_on, adding no new syntax or constraint detail, so 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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Activate a scene') and clarifies the effect ('applying its stored entity states'), which distinguishes it from siblings like automations_get_scene_config or automations_list_scenes. It does not explicitly name a sibling it should be preferred over, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It notes the underlying mechanism (calls scene.turn_on) but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives such as services_call_service or entities_turn_on. An agent gets no routing help.

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