ambilight_mode

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

The description only restates that the mode changes, while the annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. It adds no extra behavioral context, such as whether the change applies immediately, requires Ambilight to be on, or has side effects on current playback.

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 description is a single short sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It could have included a little more context about the mode values, but for a one-parameter setter this level of brevity is effective.

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 simple setter with an enum parameter and no output schema, the description plus schema is mostly sufficient. However, it omits any prerequisite or side-effect context, such as whether the tool should only be used while Ambilight is active, which would make it fully 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 100%, so the mode parameter and its enum values are fully documented in the input schema. The description itself adds no semantic detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Change') with a clear resource ('le mode Ambilight'), so an agent can identify this as a tool that sets the Ambilight mode. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ambilight_on or ambilight_off, but the word 'mode' signals that this is about selecting a mode rather than toggling power.

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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ambilight_on, ambilight_off, or get_state. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context, since no conditions or exclusions are provided.

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