bosch_camera_led_brightness_set

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose more of the write/au behavior. It does mention 'API: PUT /v/video_inputs/{id}/lighting/switch' and 'full-body write, GET-merged', which hints at the underlying mechanism. However, it does not state side effects, reversibility, permissions requirements, or whether existing lighting settings get overwritten.

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 short and front-loaded, starting with the action and core constraint. The API line adds technical context about the write mode. It is concise, although the 'full-body write, GET-merged' detail could be clearer or more prominently linked to the call flow.

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?

The description gives enough to understand the operation and valid values for two key parameters, but the 'camera' parameter is left to inference. Even with a camera list sibling, trusting the caller to know the schema's camera pattern makes the description less complete than ideal.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that position must be 'top' or 'bottom' and that brightness is a 0-100% scale, and the API path suggests 'camera' is the id in the URL. The meaning of 'camera' is still implicit rather than explicitly define description.

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 clearly states the action: 'Set top or bottom LED brightness (0-100%).' It identifies the exact resource being modified and the valid value range. It also adds a compatibility constraint, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as bosch_camera_light_set or bosch_camera_status_led_set.

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 implies its usage through the 'Set' verb and supports 'fromally' cameras, but it does not explicitly describe when to choose this tool over siblings like bosch_camera_led_brightness_get or bosch_camera_light_set. The 'Gen2 cameras only' note is a useful exclusion but does not fully route the model to or away from alternatives.

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