rename_light

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the mutation and parameter constraints but does not mention potential side effects, failure behavior, idempotency, or whether the light must exist before renaming.

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 and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The parameter list is direct and each line delivers useful information without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter rename tool, the core information is present, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, the lack of annotation coverage and absence of any guidance about prerequisites, side effects, or failure modes leaves the description minimally viable but not 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 input schema has no per-property descriptions, so the description's 'Args' section is the sole source of parameter meaning. It correctly identifies light_id as a numeric ID and name as the display name with a 32-character maximum, adding real value beyond the raw schema.

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 and resource, 'Rename a light,' which clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling rename tools like rename_sensor and rename_scene. The additional parameter documentation reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and simplistic description.

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