create_light

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It states 'Add a light to the scene', which implies a mutating operation, but it does not indicate whether a reference or ID is returned, how invalid light_type values are handled, or what other scene state is affected. Without these details, the agent cannot fully predict the tool's side effects.

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 very concise: one sentence for purpose and a compact numeric block listing the two parameters. The light_type values are front-loaded and no extensions or unnecessary clauses exist. Every sentence contributes necessary information or adds safety, so it earns a 5.

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 with two parameters and likely has an output schema, so return values need not be documented. However, it lacks detail on the effect of choosing a particular light type, possible incompatibilities, or what the described means for the scene. It also does not state whether the 'name' is used for scene graph identification, which could lead to naming conflicts. These gaps are modest but could hinder an agent's ability to make the right call.

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. It adds the valid values for light_type directly in parentheses — 'area, dome, spot' — which is critical semantic information absent from the schema. It also clarifies that 'name' is optional. While it doesn't explain the differences between the light types, the provided enums are valuable and go beyond the raw schema.

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 'Add a light to the scene', naming a specific verb and resource. It also lists the specific light types (area, dome, spot), which helps disambiguate from siblings like add_primitive or create_camera. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with these siblings or describe the purpose of a light in context, which prevents a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as add_primitive or create_camera, and it does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent has to infer from the tool name that adding a light is the intended use, but there is no explicit when-to-use context. This is a minimal/useless guideline, hence score 2.

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