set_effect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether starting an effect replaces the current effect, how brightness interacts with the effect's own colors, or whether the effect persists after disconnect.

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 zero filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though its brevity is achieved by omitting rather than by compressing real content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the mutation semantics. Still, for a state-changing tool that interacts with brightness and with other effects, the description omits the prerequisite (valid effect list) and any note about replacing a running effect.

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 only 50% and the description adds no parameter semantics at all. The critical constraint — that 'effect' must be drawn from get_light's supports.effects — is only in the schema, and the interaction between the optional 'brightness' parameter and the effect is explained nowhere.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair ("Start ... the light's built-in effects"), which is clearly distinct from the sibling stop_effect. It stops short of naming the sibling or stating scope (e.g., which light, whether it replaces an active effect), so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus set_color, set_white, or recall_scene, and no mention of the required prerequisite that the effect string come from get_light's supports.effects (that only appears in the schema). The reader is left to infer the usage context from the verb alone.

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