set_state

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. 'Set the state of lights' implies a mutation operation, but it does not mention permissions, side effects (e.g., whether changes are reversible), rate limits, or response behavior. This is inadequate for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the core action, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects, usage context, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that parameters like 'power', 'color', and 'brightness' are part of the state being set. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate but does not 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 'Set the state of lights' clearly states the verb ('Set') and resource ('lights'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'toggle_power' or 'activate_scene', which also modify light states, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this tool over others.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a token), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'toggle_power' for simple on/off or 'activate_scene' for preset configurations, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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