setup_studio_3point

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so well. It explicitly states that it removes existing lights—a destructive action—and reveals the default behavior through the remove_existing parameter (default true). It also discloses the output type ('optimized area lights'). Missing details like exact coordinate space or color ranges are minor, but the description clearly surfaces the most important 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 tightly organized: purpose first, then behavior, then a well-grouped arguments list (energy, color, position). Each sentence and argument description earns its place, with no repetition of schema types or filler. The front-loading of purpose and behavior makes it easy for an agent to quickly decide whether to use the tool.

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?

Given 10 unannotated parameters, no output schema, and a setup-focused task, the description covers all essential context: purpose, usage subjects, key behavior, and parameter meanings. Minor omissions—such as return value, exact color/position semantics, and coordinate space—are expected for this kind of tool and do not prevent correct invocation in most cases. A slightly richer description would be needed only for unusual lighting setups.

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 provide parameter meaning on its own. It does: energy values are given in watts, fill and rim energies include recommended ratios (1/3 and 1/2 of key), colors are specified as RGB, positions are defined as [x,y,z] arrays, and remove_existing is explained. This is a strong compensation, though it falls slightly short of full clarity by not specifying color value ranges or coordinate origin.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set up 3-point studio lighting (key, fill, rim).' It differentiates this tool from the generic setup_studio_lighting sibling by naming the three distinct light roles within the same sentence. The subsequent behavior—'Removes existing lights and creates optimized area lights'—further defines what the tool accomplishes, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 lists explicit applicable subjects: 'Works for products, characters, environments, portraits.' This provides clear contextual guidance for when an agent should select this tool. While it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, the '3-point' specificity and subject coverage effectively communicate the intended use case, placing it slightly short of a perfect 5.

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