Adjust a light's brightness to any level from 0 to 100 percent, ensuring your Tuya device achieves the exact illumination needed for any task or mood.
Set a light's brightness as a percentage (0-100).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | Yes | ||
| percent | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic effect, but doesn't mention side effects, failure modes, prerequisites (e.g., device must be a dimmable light), reversibility, or return behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and value range efficiently, earning its place.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description lacks guidance on edge cases (device not found, non-dimmable device), prerequisites, or when to prefer this over set_datapoint. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but leaves room for agent error.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates partially: it clarifies that 'percent' is a percentage 0-100 and implies 'device' identifies a light. However, it doesn't explain how device is addressed (e.g., ID vs name) or whether percent accepts any integer outside 0-100.
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 ('Set'), resource ('a light's brightness'), and value range (0-100), making it instantly distinguishable from sibling tools like set_power, set_color, and set_color_temp. An agent can understand exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.
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 use when adjusting brightness ('Set a light's brightness'), but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives. It doesn't mention that this applies only to dimmable lights or that other set_* tools exist for different properties.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.