delete_light

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. It only says the light is removed, but does not state whether removal is permanent, whether it unpairs the physical device, whether associated groups/scenes are affected, or what happens if the light_id does not exist.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. The single argument is documented in a compact, readable format, which is appropriate for a one-parameter delete operation.

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?

The core operation and the only parameter are covered, and an output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not necessary. However, for a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the absence of side-effect or irreversibility information leaves the description minimally viable rather than fully complete.

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?

The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema by saying the parameter is a 'Numeric light ID to remove,' which compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. However, the schema declares light_id as a string, creating a potential mismatch with 'Numeric,' and the description does not explain where the ID comes from or its expected format.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Remove a light') and a specific resource ('from the gateway'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It is distinct from siblings like get_light, set_light_state, and rename_light, and the resource 'light' differentiates it from delete_group or delete_sensor.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention, for example, that this should not be used if only unpairing a sensor, or that the light must first be obtained via list_lights.

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