set_lights

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one important behavioral trait beyond the schema: supplying brightness/color/white tone implicitly turns the lights on. It omits other relevant behavior such as what happens with conflicting color parameters, partial failure across a multi-light target, or permission requirements.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core capability front-loaded and the non-obvious implicit-on behavior placed second. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema covers most parameters. For an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, however, the description leaves real gaps: no guidance on argument combinations, multi-target semantics, or error behavior.

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 88%, so the schema already documents target, brightness range, color hex conversion and transition limits. The description only restates the implicit-on rule for brightness/color, adding little semantics beyond what the structured fields already provide; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it turns lights on/off and changes brightness, color or white tone, which distinguishes it from scene/timer/effect siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling set_power, which plausibly overlaps with the on/off portion of this tool.

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 never says when to prefer set_lights over set_power, set_effect or activate_scene, nor does it state prerequisites (e.g. target must exist). The second sentence describes a side effect rather than selection guidance, so usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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