activate_look

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what happens to the previously active look, whether activation is reversible, what state it changes on the playback engine, or how errors surface when a name matches nothing. 'Activate' implies mutation but the details are absent.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is structurally sound. The brevity, however, reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin: it never explains the activation effect, return value, or failure modes. An agent would have to guess at the operational semantics before calling it.

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%, including the cross-project search fallback for lookName, so the schema already documents parameters fully. The description's 'by name or ID' merely restates the two lookup modes without adding syntax, precedence, or conflict-resolution details beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Activate a lighting look') that an agent can act on immediately. It fails to differentiate from the close sibling activate_look_from_board, so it stops short of a 5.

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, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether cue playback must be running), and no routing to alternatives such as activate_look_from_board or get_current_active_look. 'By name or ID' hints at input options but says nothing about situational choice.

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