set_scene_look

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it owns a native lighting/sky/post-process/camera rig, saves prior lighting for restore (reversibility), keeps the presentation camera fixed across preset changes, disables existing scene lights while active (an important side effect), and is poll-based. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs and cannot infer from the schema.

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, leading with the verbs and preset names and then adding behavioral notes. Slash-separated verb lists are dense but readable. Every sentence adds information, though the multi-verb phrasing is slightly compressed.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and it covers side effects, async polling, restoration, and camera behavior. The main gap is the unexplained 'position' parameter. For a three-parameter tool with a complex rig, it is largely complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates both mode values implicitly ('apply/inspect/capture/restore') and all four preset values (warm_cartoon, cool_scifi, moonlit, neutral), which fills the missing enums. It says nothing about the 'position' parameter, however, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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 names specific verbs (apply/inspect/capture/restore) and the resource (scene lighting presets: warm_cartoon, cool_scifi, moonlit, neutral), so an agent knows the tool manages a lighting rig rather than arbitrary scene editing. It has no title (null), but the wording is self-sufficient. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like edit_scene, inspect_scene, or compose_scene.

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?

It gives clear operational context: 'Poll request; get_preview(request_id) reads captures' tells the agent to poll and name-drops the sibling that reads the results. It also implies that inspect/capture/restore behavior is selected via the mode. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over edit_scene or set_project_style, nor any exclusions.

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