recall_scene

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burde of behavioral disclosure. It does clearly say that the effect is transitioning all lights in the group to the saved state. However, it does not mention whether this is a mutating/irreversible action, whether it is idempotent, what happens if the scene or group does not exist, or whether any response is returned.

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 compact and well-structured. The main action and effect are front-loaded, followed by a clean Args section. No sentence is wasted.

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?

For a two-parameter action, the core purpose and parameter roles are present, and an output schema exists so return-value detail is not required. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description leaves gaps around side effects, error conditions, and how to obtain valid scene IDs.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does define both params: group_id as a 'Numeric group ID' and scene_id as 'Scene ID to activate.' This adds some meaning, but 'Numeric group ID' is ambiguous because the schema declares group_id as a string, and 'Scene ID to activate' is near-tautological.

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 states a specific verb ('Activate (recall)') and resource ('scene'), and explains the resulting behavior: 'all lights in the group transition to the saved state.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scenes, get_scene, or create_scene, which are about scene management rather than activation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_group_action or get_scene. It does not mention any prerequisites, such as looking up the scene_id via list_scenes, or situations where this tool should not be used.

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