set_scene

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Activate' implies a state mutation, but it says nothing about whether the scene overrides existing color/temperature, whether it persists, or what happens when a scene name or bulb target is invalid.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action, the scene identifier, and the target scope. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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?

With 100% parameter coverage, no output schema, and a simple mutation, the description is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is the missing workflow context (discover/list before setting) and unstated behavior for unknown scenes, which for a 3-param tool is a minor omission.

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 explains scene name/ID, speed range, and the target options including 'all'. The description only restates name/ID and bulb targeting, adding no format, range, or default 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?

Specific verb ('Activate') plus resource ('WiZ scene') and scope ('on one or more bulbs'), which separates it from set_color/set_temperature/list_scenes. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast itself with any sibling tool, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over set_color or set_temperature, and no mention of prerequisites such as discovering bulbs or listing available scene names before calling. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the sibling list.

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