Set a dynamic effect such as candle, fire, or sparkle on a specific light to control its ambiance.
Set a dynamic effect on a light: none, candle, fire, prism, sparkle, opal, glisten, underwater, cosmos, sunbeam, enchant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| effect | Yes | ||
| light_id | No | ||
| light_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clarifies that the effect is 'dynamic' and provides the list of recognized effects, adding functional context beyond the structural information in the annotations. It does not reveal backend behavioral traits (e.g., latency, persistence) that are not already covered by the 'idempotent' annotation.
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 definition is a single, highly optimized sentence, immediately stating the core function and following up with the complete domain of accepted values. There is no extraneous wording.
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 configuration setter with few parameters, the definition is quite complete as it provides the necessary domain constraints for the required 'effect' parameter. The complexity of the tool is low, making the description adequate.
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?
Given that schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides the critical semantic value for the 'effect' parameter by enumerating all valid strings (e.g., 'candle', 'fire'). Without this list, the agent would only know it needs a string and not what values are permissible.
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 explicitly states the action ('Set a dynamic effect') and provides an exhaustive list of acceptable effect values, clearly defining its purpose as a specific visual modification tool.
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 tool provides inherent usage guidance by listing all possible effects, implying that this is the tool to use whenever a specific visual pattern is desired. However, it does not explicitly guide the agent on when to prefer this over other related tools like set_color.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.