recall_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds little beyond that: it does not say what happens if the name is unknown, whether all light attributes are overwritten, or whether the change applies immediately.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the discovery hint.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema and annotations, this covers the essentials (what it does, where to find the name). It omits failure behavior and the scope of state change, which matter for a mutating tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does so usefully by indicating that the sole parameter is the name of a saved scene obtainable via get_light. It stops short of stating whether the name is case-sensitive or must match exactly.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: restoring the light to a saved scene. The phrasing 'put the light back' is slightly informal, but combined with the get_light reference it clearly marks this as scene recall rather than scene saving, distinguishing it from save_scene.

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?

It implies the workflow prerequisite by noting that get_light lists the saved scenes, which tells an agent where to get valid names. It never explicitly contrasts recall with save_scene or states when recall is preferred over setting brightness/color directly.

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