create_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a creation/mutation operation ('创建' - create) and provides return value structure, but lacks important behavioral context like whether it requires specific scene states, what happens on failure, or if there are limitations on light counts. The examples help but don't fully cover behavioral traits.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, supported types, args, returns, examples) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the examples more tightly, but overall it's efficiently organized with no wasted text.

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 6-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent coverage of parameters and return values. It explains what the tool does, documents all parameters thoroughly, shows return structure, and provides multiple usage examples. The main gap is lack of behavioral context about scene requirements or limitations.

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 providing extensive parameter documentation. It explains each parameter's purpose, format, defaults, and provides specific examples for different light types. The light_type parameter gets particularly detailed treatment with descriptions of each supported type, going far beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('创建一个灯光对象' - create a light object) and resource ('在 3ds Max 场景中' - in a 3ds Max scene). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_object or create_material by specifying it creates specifically light objects, not generic objects or materials.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., must have a scene open), compare to similar tools like create_object, or indicate when other lighting methods might be preferable. Usage is implied through examples but not explicitly stated.

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