configure_light

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose a useful constraint ('spot_angle ... spot lights only') and implies mutation of an existing light. It does not say whether omitted parameters retain current values or get reset, nor what happens if the named light does not exist.

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 definition is front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and a clean Args block. Every line adds information; there is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameter semantics well but omits when-to-use routing and the behavior of unspecified parameters. An agent can call it for straightforward cases but cannot tell whether nulls mean 'leave unchanged' or 'reset to default.'

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 parameter list is the primary documentation. It adds real meaning beyond bare names: energy is in watts, color is an [R, G, B] array, and spot_angle is in radians and only applies to spot lights. Some ranges, such as color value bounds, are still unspecified.

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 opening sentence 'Configure an existing light's properties' names a specific action and resource, and the word 'existing' clearly distinguishes it from create_light. It also enumerates the affected properties, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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?

Use is implied by 'existing light': the tool is for modifying lights that already exist, not creating them. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as create_light or list_lights, nor does it state when to prefer this over related lighting tools like setup_hdri_lighting or setup_studio_lighting.

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