setup_hdri_lighting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful behavior (empty hdri_path uses a default gradient) and states rotation units, but it does not disclose whether the call replaces existing environment lighting, requires a world setup, or has side effects on the scene. For a mutating setup tool, this is a significant gap.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a short parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 three-parameter setup tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers parameters and one fallback behavior, which is minimally adequate. However, it omits expected side effects, whether it replaces existing environment lighting, and what kind of return or confirmation the agent can expect. These are material gaps for correct invocation in a larger workflow.

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, and it does for all three parameters: hdri_path's role and default fallback, strength as environment strength, and rotation in radians. Though strength is only minimally elaborated, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema names and defaults.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Set up HDRI environment lighting.' This differentiates it from many siblings by name and resource, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from closely related tools like setup_world_sky_texture or setup_studio_lighting.

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 verb 'Set up' and the resource 'HDRI environment lighting' imply the intended context, and parameter descriptions hint at usage (e.g., empty hdri_path selects a default gradient). However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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