power_light

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two non-obvious traits: the toggle resolution rule and that a positive delay_seconds runs the action in a background process rather than blocking. It does not say what happens to previously scheduled actions or what the call returns immediately after scheduling, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

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, both front-loaded with the operative information (the action, then the toggle rule, then the delay caveat). No filler or restated field titles.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the mutation semantics and the async scheduling behavior well. The one real hole is the undocumented 'target' parameter and the absence of any note on what a delayed call returns.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaning for two of three parameters: the allowed state behaviors and the '> 0 schedules it' semantics of delay_seconds. The 'target' parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving its accepted values (room? device id? group name?) and its 'all' default unexplained.

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 ('turn lights on, off, or toggle') plus the scope ('as a group'), which implicitly separates it from set_light's single-light operation. It does not name set_light or light_status explicitly, so the sibling distinction is inferred from 'as a group' rather than stated.

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 makes clear this is the group-level control path and defines toggle resolution ('any on -> all off, else all on'), which helps an agent pick the right state value. It never says when to prefer this over set_light or how it relates to timers/presets, so routing guidance is only implied.

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