Adjust the amaran light's brightness from 0–100% while preserving the active white, color, or effect; during music mode, it shifts the music brightness range instead.
Change brightness only, keeping the current white, colour or effect.
While music mode runs, this moves music mode's brightness range instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| brightness | Yes | Brightness, 0-100 % |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that other settings are preserved and that under music mode the call mutates the music mode brightness range instead of the static level. It doesn't mention failure modes (e.g., device off/unreachable) or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.
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 sentences, both load-bearing, with the primary behavior front-loaded and the contextual exception second. No filler or restatement of the name.
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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, side effects, and the music-mode edge case. Only minor gaps remain — preconditions and error behavior — which are not decisive for a one-parameter call.
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 description coverage is 100% and the single brightness parameter is documented with its 0-100 range in the schema, so the definition already carries the semantics. The description adds no format or unit detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
States a specific verb (Change) and resource (brightness) plus an explicit scope qualifier: 'brightness only, keeping the current white, colour or effect.' That qualifier is exactly what separates it from siblings like set_white, set_color, and set_effect, so an agent can route correctly without reading schemas.
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 phrase 'keeping the current white, colour or effect' communicates the condition that selects this tool over the color/effect setters, and the music-mode sentence flags a context where the effect differs. It stops short of naming the alternative siblings explicitly or stating preconditions such as the light needing to be on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.