ha_area_lights_off

Does 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 action ('turn off') without mentioning how invalid area IDs are handled, whether only on-lights are affected, the effect of the optional transition parameter, or any side effects. This adds little beyond the tool's name.

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, clear sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete. It omits information about the transition parameter, possible return values, error conditions, and any prerequisites. While the tool is simple, there are clear gaps that could confuse an agent.

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 schema has two parameters with no descriptions: area_id (required string) and transition (optional number). The description mentions area_id but says nothing about transition, leaving its meaning (likely a fade time) undocumented. For a 0% schema coverage situation, the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter information.

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 a specific verb ('turn off'), resource ('all lights in an area'), and method ('by area_id'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like ha_light_turn_off (single light) and ha_area_lights_on (opposite action).

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 provides a clear usage context: you would use this when you want to turn off all lights in an area and have an area_id. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'all lights in an area' implies the appropriate scenario compared to single-light tools.

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