ha_light_turn_off

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and parameter, without mentioning what happens if the light is already off, whether the operation is reversible, if it could fail, or what the return value looks like. It does not contradict any annotations (since none exist), but it lacks important behavioral 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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is adequately sized for the tool's simplicity and front-loads the core action.

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?

This is a very simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. The description gives the essential information: turn off a light, and the entity_id is needed. However, it lacks any note about potential errors or side effects, and without usage guidelines it may not be fully complete in the context of the sibling tools. It meets minimum viability.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description says 'by entity_id' but does not explain what an entity_id is or its expected format (e.g., 'light.living_room'). It adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic type and required flag.

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 action: 'Turn off a light by entity_id.' It uses a specific verb and resource, making it unambiguous. The entity_id parameter is mentioned, and since sibling tools include ha_light_turn_on and ha_area_lights_off, the description effectively differentiates this as a single-light operation rather than an area-wide one.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention that for turning off all lights in an area one should use ha_area_lights_off, nor does it state any prerequisites (e.g., the light must exist). This leaves the agent without context for choosing the correct tool among related siblings.

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