set_power

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuine behavioral traits: every light in the target is set to the same brightness and existing colors/white tones are preserved. It still omits permissions, error/rejection behavior, and whether the value is a hard cap or merely approximate ("about this many watts" stays vague).

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the watts example leading and the side-effect note following. The phrasing "about this many watts" and the two-line break add minor slack but nothing 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the key side effects. For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, more on permissions and on how this differs from brightness-setting siblings would complete it.

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 100%, so the schema already documents watts, target, target_type, and transition_seconds. The description restates watts as a total for the target and adds that uniformity applies across the target's lights, but contributes no syntax, range, or format detail beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: set a target's total power draw in watts, with a concrete example. It is clearly distinguishable from a brightness-oriented sibling like set_lights, but it never names an alternative, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 phrase "e.g. use 20 watts" implies when this tool applies (you want to cap/express a target's draw in watts), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, and no routing to set_lights, set_effect, or activate_scene. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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