scene_adjust_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the tool only affects current state (not saved to scenes), requires explicit user confirmation (user_confirmed=true), and mentions that without confirmation 'operation is blocked.' It doesn't cover rate limits or error behaviors, but provides substantial operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: three sentences with zero waste. First sentence states purpose and capabilities, second clarifies critical limitation, third specifies mandatory requirement. Every sentence earns its place with essential information 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about the tool's behavior, limitations, and requirements. It covers the critical distinction from scene-saving operations and the mandatory confirmation requirement. The main gap is lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the rich parameter schema and clear behavioral disclosure, it's quite complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - mainly emphasizing the 'user_confirmed' requirement. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns beyond what's in the schema 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 clearly states the specific action ('controlling lights') with detailed operations (turn on/off, set brightness, RGB color, etc.) and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing it's for current state changes only, not scene saving. It explicitly positions itself as 'PREFERRED for controlling lights' among the scene-related tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'PREFERRED for controlling lights' indicates when to use it, 'This only changes the light's current state - it does NOT save to any scene' clarifies when NOT to use it (vs. scene-saving tools), and 'REQUIRES user_confirmed=true' specifies a critical prerequisite. It also references sibling tool 'scene_show_lights' for seeing available effects.

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