turn_off_group

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description leaves a real behavioral gap unaddressed: both group_id and group_name are optional with empty-string defaults, so it never says what happens when both are supplied or neither is — a case an agent will hit.

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 short sentence with the resource and the addressing modes front-loaded and no filler. It could have used the saved space to resolve the id/name ambiguity, but nothing present is wasteful.

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?

With an output schema and rich annotations, the definition only needs to cover targeting and edge cases, and the targeting hint is there. Given two fully optional parameters at 0% schema coverage, the unresolved both/neither case keeps it at minimum viable rather than complete.

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 partially does by signalling that id and name are alternative addressing modes. It adds no detail on precedence, format of the id, or case/naming behaviour for group_name, leaving half the semantics to guesswork.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Turn off a room or zone") and clarifies the target is a group, which separates it from the light-level siblings like turn_off_light. It stops short of naming the complementary sibling turn_on_group, but the opposite-action pairing is obvious.

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 framing: nothing says to use this instead of turn_off_light when the target is a room, nor any prerequisite about the group existing or being reachable. The only guidance is the implicit "by id or by name" targeting hint.

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