set_color_temperature

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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the Kelvin range (~2000 warm to ~6500 cool), but says nothing about what happens on bulbs lacking a color-temperature capability or on invalid values — the main behavioral failure mode for this call.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and target, with the unit and range as a parenthetical. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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 and rich annotations remove the burden of describing return values and safety, so the remaining gaps are narrow but real. For a mutation on a device that may not support the capability, the description should say how the two identifier parameters interact and how unsupported lights are handled.

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 carries the load and it only partially does: it defines the required 'temperature' meaning with a concrete range, which is genuinely valuable. It adds nothing about the two light-identification parameters (light_id and light_name, both defaulting to empty) or which one takes precedence when both are supplied.

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 ('Set a light's white color temperature') and clarifies the unit and range, which lets an agent distinguish this from set_color_rgb. It does not explicitly name the sibling it competes with (set_group_color_temperature for groups, set_color for generic color), so differentiation is implied 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?

The word 'white' hints that this is the tunable-white path versus set_color_rgb/set_color_xy, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or fallback guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that group targets require set_group_color_temperature instead.

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