bosch_camera_light_set

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: immediate error for unsupported cameras, local vs cloud path preference, brightness mapping, fallback mechanism, and wallwasher RGB limitation. This goes well beyond the bare minimum.

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 concise, with two clear paragraphs. The first sentence states the core action, followed by bullet-like details. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, prerequisites, error behavior, parameter details, and edge cases. It is fully sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining the 'enabled' parameter's mapping to brightness 100/0, the 'prefer_local' parameter's effect on execution path and fallback, and implicitly the 'camera' parameter. It adds significant meaning 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Turn the camera's spotlight on or off.' It specifies the verb and resource directly, and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning spotlight control and camera compatibility.

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 specifies when to use the tool: only for cameras with 'featureSupport.light=true', and mentions immediate error for unsupported cameras. It implicitly tells when not to use (for non-spotlight tasks), but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'bosch_camera_light_set' vs other light-related tools (none exist among siblings).

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