set_light

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses scope ('or all printers') and options (chamber/work light), but does not mention side effects, persistence, return behavior, or prerequisites for a mutating control operation.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core resource and scope are front-loaded, and the supported light types follow immediately.

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 command, the schema fully documents parameters and the description states the scope options. However, with no annotations and no output schema, details about operation semantics and effects are left unspecified, making it adequate but not 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 coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a clear description, including the default for light and the meaning of printer='all'. The description adds little beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names the resource (LED lights on a printer) and scope (single or all printers), and lists the two supported light types. The verb 'Control' is somewhat generic, but the resource is specific enough to separate this from sibling set_* tools.

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 intended use is implied by the resource, but no explicit guidance says when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or sibling comparisons, so an agent must infer context from the tool name and schema.

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