set_brightness

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, and the description usefully adds the value range (0-100), the side effect that any nonzero value powers the light on, and the boundary case where 0 turns it off. It does not disclose what happens for an unknown or ambiguous light target, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource, the range, and the two side effects front-loaded; there is no redundant wording to remove.

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?

The output schema and annotations cover return values and safety, and the brightness semantics are well covered. However, for a 3-parameter tool offering two ways to identify the target light, the total absence of target-selection guidance leaves a meaningful hole.

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 parameter burden, and it only clarifies one of three parameters (brightness, with its 0-100 range). The light_id and light_name parameters — both optional with empty-string defaults — are never explained, leaving the agent with no idea which identifier to supply or how precedence is resolved.

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 states a specific verb+resource ("set a light's brightness") and the possessive "a light's" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling set_group_brightness. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over turn_on_light, turn_off_light, or set_group_brightness. The note that 0 turns the light off hints at overlap with turn_off_light but never routes the agent explicitly.

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