create_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Create a light source' and lists parameters, without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing lights, requires an active scene, or returns anything). The description does not reveal behavioral traits beyond the basic action, leaving the agent to infer outcomes.

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, starting with a one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list. It is front-loaded with the action and structured clearly. While it could be more polished (e.g., using markdown), it is efficient and 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?

The tool is simple, but the description lacks context about the operation: it does not mention that it adds a new light to the current scene, what happens to existing lights, or whether it returns an identifier. Given the large set of sibling tools, some context about its placement among light-related operations would be helpful. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for improvement.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by providing brief explanations for each parameter: 'name: Light name', 'light_type: POINT, SUN, SPOT, or AREA', 'location: [x, y, z] position', 'energy: Light power in watts', 'color: [R, G, B] light color', 'radius: Soft shadow radius'. This adds meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults, clarifying units and purpose.

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 'Create a light source,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like configure_light by the word 'create,' but it does not explicitly mention that it adds a new light to the scene, which is implied. The listed arguments clarify the scope, but differentiation from other light-related tools is not explicit.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as configure_light or setup_hdri_lighting. The usage context is only implied by the name and the action word 'create.' There is no explicit statement about when to prefer this tool or what prerequisites exist.

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