set_power

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing side effects (e.g., what happens if device is offline), rate limits, or the meaning of the backend parameter. More transparency about behavior is needed for a mutating tool.

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 very concise (6 words) but lacks structure. It is front-loaded with the action, which is good, but the brevity omits important context. It could be longer if it included essential details like backend selection guidance.

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?

Given the 4 parameters (including a backend choice with no explanation), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent would benefit from details on how to choose the backend, what the response indicates, and error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description. However, the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. A baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already provides parameter details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Turn a Govee device on or off') with a clear verb ('Turn') and resource ('Govee device'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like set_brightness, set_color, etc., which handle different device aspects.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the function is self-evident given sibling tool names, implying usage when toggling power is needed. A note about prerequisites (e.g., device must be discovered) or when not to use would improve clarity.

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