turn_off_light

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say what happens if the light is already off, what occurs when both or neither identifier is supplied, or how targeting failures are reported.

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 action front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the brevity leaves little room for the addressing rules an agent would need.

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 not be described. However, for a mutation tool with two entirely undocumented, optional parameters and empty-string defaults, the description should clarify how a target light is resolved and what happens when no identifier is provided; that gap is material.

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 two parameters carry no documented meaning at the schema level. The phrase "by id or by name" maps loosely onto light_id and light_name but does not state precedence when both are given, what the empty-string defaults mean, or that light_id accepts both string and integer.

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 and resource ("Turn a light off") and clarifies the addressing mode ("by id or by name"). This implicitly separates it from turn_off_group and turn_on_light, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as turn_off_group for grouped lights or turn_on_light for the inverse. The only usable hint is the choice between id and name addressing, which is inferred rather than stated as a rule.

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