set_light_state

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does add some behavioral detail, such as 'brightness only when on=true', the default transition time of 0.4s, and the exact behavior of alert modes. However, it omits broader behavioral context like state persistence, what happens if the light is unreachable, or how conflicting color parameters are resolved.

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 opens with a concise one-sentence purpose and then uses an organized Args list to pack in the necessary parameter detail. There is no fluff, and the structure makes it easy to scan and extract exactly what each parameter needs.

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 10 parameters and an output schema that already covers return values, the description is mostly complete. It spells out ranges, defaults, and units for all parameters, but it lacks information about interactions between parameters (e.g., precedence when multiple color modes are provided) and whether color/effect settings apply when on=false. This prevents a perfect score.

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%, and the description fully compensates by documenting every parameter with ranges, units, defaults, and allowed values: brightness 1-254, hue 0-65535, saturation 0-254, color_temp mireds 153-500 with cooler/lower relation, xy coordinates, transition_time in tenths of a second, and alert/effect enums. The only minor ambiguity is calling light_id 'Numeric' while the schema types it as a string, but the intent remains clear.

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 uses a specific verb 'Control' and names the resource ('a light's power, brightness, colour, or effect'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is easy to tell apart from 'get_light' and group-level tools, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or contrast itself with 'set_group_action', so it stops short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_group_action' or 'get_light'. The description provides parameter documentation but no context about when this is the right choice, when it should not be used, or what preconditions apply.

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