scene_blackout

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the destructive nature (turning off ALL lights), the safety mechanism (user_confirmed requirement), and optional scene creation behavior. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but covers the core behavioral traits well.

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 front-loaded with the core action first, followed by optional functionality and critical requirement. Every sentence earns its place: first states the main action, second adds optional scene creation, third establishes the safety requirement. No wasted words.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides strong context about the tool's behavior and safety requirements. It could benefit from mentioning what happens when lights are turned off (e.g., whether previous states are saved) or error conditions, but covers the essential aspects well given the complexity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the critical importance of the user_confirmed parameter ('REQUIRED: user must explicitly request blackout') and clarifying the tool's primary purpose beyond what the schema provides, though it doesn't elaborate on exclude or create_scene parameters beyond 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 ('Turn off ALL lights') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on blackout functionality rather than scene activation, adjustment, or management. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the scope ('ALL lights') and optional scene creation.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (for blackout operations) and includes a critical prerequisite ('REQUIRES user_confirmed=true - user must explicitly request blackout'). It differentiates from siblings by focusing on mass light control rather than scene-specific operations like scene_activate or scene_configure.

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