ambilight_off

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

The description states the basic state-changing behavior and is consistent with annotations: readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. It adds no extra behavioral context beyond the direct action, such as scope (only Ambilight vs. entire TV) or side effects, but it does not contradict any annotation.

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 efficient clause with no filler or repetition. It conveys the complete operation in minimal words, which is ideal for a simple parameterless command.

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 trivial no-parameter tool with helpful annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what the tool does and the name disambiguates it among siblings. A brief note clarifying that this only affects Ambilight rather than the TV's main power would be nice but is not essential.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter information for the description to add. This is the appropriate baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 ('Desactive') and a clear resource ('l'Ambilight de la TV'), making the tool's function immediately unambiguous. It also naturally contrasts with sibling tools like ambilight_on and ambilight_mode, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as power_off, screen_off, or ambilight_mode. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and the one-line description, with no explicit exclusions or selection criteria.

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