set_all_locos_lights

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: loops server-side, independent attempts per locomotive, one failure doesn't block others, returns list of results. Also explains scope: only affects locomotives acquired this session and that nothing acquired returns an empty array, not an error.

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?

Description is well-structured with a clear main sentence followed by Args, usage notes, and return info. Slightly redundant mentioning the looping behavior twice, but overall efficient and 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?

Given a single boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: input meaning, behavioral scope, return format, error handling, and alternatives. It is fully self-contained and leaves no gaps.

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 only parameter 'state' is fully explained in the Args section: 'True to turn every light-related function on for every locomotive, False to turn them all off.' Although context signals indicate 0% schema description coverage, the actual description provides complete semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Turn ON/OFF EVERY light-related function of EVERY currently-acquired locomotive at once.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives: set_loco_lights for one locomotive and set_layout_lights for layout/scenery lighting.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria: 'Call for "turn on/off all the lights of all the locos"... Never loop set_loco_lights/set_function yourself.' It also states when not to use: 'For ONE named locomotive use set_loco_lights' and 'For layout/scenery lighting... use set_layout_lights.' Includes scope limitation referencing emergency_stop_all.

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