activate_scene_by_name

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior; the description adds real context beyond that — matching is case- and accent-insensitive, and ambiguity surfaces as an error listing candidate rooms. It does not describe the return payload, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, then the error/disambiguation path. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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 three-parameter mutation with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the agent has everything needed: what it does, how names are matched, and how to recover from ambiguous names.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and does so: scene_name is defined as a case/accent-insensitive name match, and group_name/group_id are framed as the disambiguation selectors for duplicate scene names across rooms. Only the type difference between group_id (string or integer) is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Activate a scene') plus a distinguishing lookup strategy ('by name, case and accent insensitive') that separates it from id-based siblings like set_scene. It also scopes the operation to 'the room it belongs to', which is meaningful in a multi-room system.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what to do when several rooms contain a scene of that name: re-call with group_name or group_id. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g. set_scene for id-based activation), so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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