turn_on_group

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. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say what happens when both group_id and group_name are supplied (both default to empty string), what error occurs when neither resolves, or whether all member lights change state.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is the right shape for a simple toggle tool. It is arguably over-terse, but that gap is charged against parameter semantics and completeness rather than conciseness.

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 no explanation, but this is still a state-mutating tool with two optional, undocumented, empty-defaulted parameters. The description leaves the agent without enough to decide which identifier to pass or how conflicts are resolved, which is a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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 burden, and it only weakly does: 'by id or by name' implies the two addressing modes but never maps them onto group_id vs group_name, never states precedence when both are provided, and never states that at least one is effectively required despite the schema marking neither as required.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Turn on') and resource ('a room or zone'), which also disambiguates it from the sibling turn_on_light by making clear this operates on a group/room rather than an individual light. It stops short of naming turn_on_light explicitly as the alternative, but the light-vs-group distinction is legible.

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: nothing tells the agent to prefer turn_on_group over turn_on_light per bulb, nor how to resolve a scene already active, nor what happens if the group is already on. The only hint ('by id or by name') describes addressing mode, not usage conditions.

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