Activate Mood

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is non-read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the behavioral effect that it sets all devices in the mood to their saved states, which is useful context but not a deep disclosure beyond what the action itself suggests.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the verb 'Activate', and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is clean.

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 simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and annotations provided, the description is adequate. It explains what the tool does and the effect on devices. It could mention return behavior or prerequisites, but the schema and annotations cover most essentials.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (Mood ID, Zone ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning by clarifying that a mood is a 'scene' and that it's zone-specific, but it doesn't delve into parameter formats or relationships.

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 a specific action ('Activate') applied to a specific resource ('mood (scene) in a zone') and explains the effect ('sets all devices in the mood to their saved states'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_moods or set_variable.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you want to activate a mood in a zone. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or provide exclusions (e.g., 'use list_moods to see available moods'). Usage is implied but not elaborated.

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