hue_beat_start

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

Annotations only say this is not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive; the description adds substantive context they cannot convey, namely that while running, REST commands on the lights in its entertainment area may be ignored. It does not say whether the process persists across calls or what happens when HUE_BEAT_PATH is missing, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and prerequisite, then the interference caveat, then the option lists. The telegraphic fragments and the misspelling "ambiant" cost a little polish, but there is no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the main operational hazard is disclosed. However, bass_only is undefined and the failure mode when HUE_BEAT_PATH is unset is not stated, so an agent calling it blind still has unknowns.

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 carry the load, and it does supply the real value sets for mode (pulse/ambiant) and palette (ironman/fire/neon/cool/sunset/arctic/auto), which are absent from the schema. The third parameter, bass_only, is never mentioned, leaving a gap.

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 and resource ("Start the external hue_beat audio sync") and immediately marks it as an optional extension with an environment prerequisite (HUE_BEAT_PATH). Against siblings like hue_beat_stop, hue_beat_status, and hue_beat_set, the action is unambiguous.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for use (the extension must be installed and HUE_BEAT_PATH set) and a warning about when its effects interfere with other tools. It stops short of explicitly routing to hue_beat_stop/hue_beat_status, though those names are self-evident counterparts.

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