set_bulb_power

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the on/off action, which is already implied by the tool name and the boolean parameter. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., bulb must be connected), side effects, error conditions, or whether it sets an absolute state vs. toggles. This is a significant gap for a state-changing tool.

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 a single, tight sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded with the action. There is no redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 tool's low complexity (one boolean parameter, no output schema, no nested objects) and complete schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. It clearly states the core function. However, it could briefly mention that the bulb must be connected or that the power is set to the absolute state, but these are minor for such a simple tool.

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 parameter description in the schema already explains that `true` turns the bulb ON and `false` turns it OFF. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the structured schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Turn') and clearly identifies the resource ('the connected smart bulb') and the action ('on or off'). It is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like set_bulb_brightness or set_bulb_color_rgb, even without naming them.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state conditions like 'when you want to change the bulb's power state' or exclude cases where other setters would be more appropriate. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and parameter.

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