scene_add_environment

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

Highly transparent about side effects: writes a new .gil in the workspace, the official save is not touched, the new configuration applies to nobody until a graph switches to it, and it returns environmentId. The only minor gap is that it doesn't reconcile the destructiveHint=true warning with its 'official save is not touched' framing, though writing a new file is consistent with a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does before the rationale and workflow, and most sentences add real value. Slightly overlong with some editorial detail (the 2026-10-13 washed-out-sky anecdote) that could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 7-param, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the key behavior, side effects, return value, and the night/day workflow. It falls short on explaining the name/mapPath/outputName parameters, but the operational picture is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry all 7 params, but it only clarifies hour (0-23, 0 is midnight), stars, milkyWay, and clouds. It leaves name (required, 1-30 chars), mapPath, and outputName undocumented, so roughly half the parameters remain 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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (an environment configuration / second sky) on a copy of a save, and explicitly distinguishes it from just changing the level clock. Combined with the mention of f.modifyEnvironmentSettings, an agent knows exactly what this produces vs. scene_set_level_settings.

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?

Explains the core use case (night sky), why the alternative (level clock) fails, and gives an explicit workflow: make two configs, one for night and one for day (hour 11, stars/milkyWay false), and switch between them. It even warns that the map's own config follows a clock stuck at the last fixed hour, so going back after night stays dark.

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