hs4.intent.scene_activate

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the resolution logic (event first, then device fallback) but omits critical details like side effects (e.g., state changes), authorization needs, or what happens to other scene aspects. The parameters like dryRun or confirm are not explained.

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 sentence, which is concise but insufficient for a tool with 9 parameters and a complex process. It front-loads the activation concept but fails to provide essential details, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and a multi-step process (resolution then fallback), the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or how parameters influence behavior.

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 description adds no information about any of the 9 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent must rely solely on the schema, which lacks human-readable meaning. For example, 'preferPath' and 'eventMinScore' are not explained.

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 tool activates a scene by first resolving an event, with a device fallback. This specific verb and resource (activate scene) distinguishes it from siblings like event_run_by_name or device_set_by_name, though it does not explicitly define what a 'scene' is in this context.

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 implies usage for scene activation with a resolution process but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like event_run_by_name or device_set_by_name. No context on prerequisites or when to choose the event path versus fallback.

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