turn_on_light

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, idempotent, non-read-only behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond them — no statement about what state the light returns to (last brightness, default level), no precedence rule when both identifiers are present, and no note on the empty-string defaults in the schema.

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 filler. It borders on under-specification, but there is no wasted wording to trim.

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?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists to describe return values, and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to be long. The remaining gap is the unresolved id-vs-name resolution rule in a zero-required-parameter schema, which is a real but modest omission.

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 "by id or by name" is genuinely useful — it tells the agent the two params are alternative addressing modes rather than complementary fields. However, it does not clarify precedence, whether name matching is exact or fuzzy, or that both default to empty strings.

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 a light on") that cleanly separates it from turn_off_light and from the group-scoped turn_on_group. It stops short of any explicit sibling differentiation, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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 phrase "by id or by name" implies the two addressing modes an agent may choose between, but there is no guidance on which to prefer, what happens if both are supplied, or when to reach for turn_on_group instead. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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