activate_scene

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. 'Activate a scene' implies a write operation that changes lighting states, but it doesn't describe what activation entails (e.g., whether it overrides current settings, requires authentication, has side effects like network calls, or returns confirmation). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this lack of detail is a critical gap.

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 extremely concise at three words, with no wasted text. However, this brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication, as it omits necessary context. It's front-loaded but lacks substance, earning a high score for structure but not full marks due to the risk of being too minimal.

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?

Given the complexity of a scene activation tool (likely involving API calls and lighting changes), no annotations, no output schema, and a sparse description, this is incomplete. The description doesn't cover what happens upon activation, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with significant uncertainty. It fails to provide adequate context for safe and effective use.

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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (token, scene_uuid, duration, fast). The description adds no meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., how duration and fast mode affect activation) or provide examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Activate a scene' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding specificity. It doesn't explain what 'activate' means in this context (e.g., applying lighting presets, triggering effects) or distinguish this tool from siblings like 'set_state' or 'breathe_effect' that might also change lighting states. The purpose remains vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene), exclusions (e.g., not for individual lights), or comparisons to siblings like 'set_state' for direct light control or 'list_scenes' for discovery. The agent must infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.

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