scene_add_light

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it says a new .gil is written into the workspace, the official save is untouched, and discloses the runtime conditional (lit under its own configuration, off under any other), backed by a playtest verification date. This meaningfully clarifies the destructiveHint=true annotation by scoping what is actually modified.

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-loads what the tool does and then layers in semantics and the sibling dependency; nearly every clause carries information. It is slightly run-on, and the verification-date sentence, while useful as a trust signal, is the most expendable part.

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 8 parameters, no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition covers the core behavior, the owning-configuration model and the save-copy side effect. The remaining gap is the three undocumented parameters (name, mapPath, outputName), which an agent must infer.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 8 parameters, the description carries the load and explains environment (name or id), position ([x, y, z]), radius (metres of reach), intensity (strength) and range (draw distance). It leaves name, mapPath and outputName undocumented beyond the hint that a .gil is written, so it compensates substantially but not completely.

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 and resource ('Add a point light') plus its scope constraint (belongs to one environment configuration, written into a copy of a save). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling scene_add_environment, which it names as the tool that creates the configuration the light attaches to.

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?

Provides a clear usage condition: a light only shines while a player is under its owning environment configuration, so night lamps must be added to the night configuration created via scene_add_environment. It routes the agent to the prerequisite sibling, but gives no explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusion.

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