manage_lighting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides useful context: clockTime range (0-24), time format ('HH:MM:SS'), createIfMissing behavior, mood presets, and the warning 'Do not invent skybox asset IDs.' It clearly indicates read-write capabilities ('Inspect or change'). However, it does not disclose return values for 'get' nor potential side effects of mutations.

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 a dense list of actions packed into a single long sentence. It is not elegantly structured but every action is briefly explained. It earns its place by covering many subcommands without excessive verbosity, though readability could be improved with line breaks or bullets.

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 has 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description covers most action-parameter semantics, but there are gaps: what does 'get' return? How does 'set' differ from 'lighting'? What does 'sky' do beyond 'do not invent asset IDs'? The description is adequate for basic usage but incomplete for an AI agent that needs to understand exact behavior without examples.

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 only 50%, missing descriptions for action, clockTime, mood, and properties. The description compensates significantly by explaining how the action parameter maps to other params: 'set_time/time (clockTime 0-24 or time 'HH:MM:SS')', 'mood (preset: ... plus optional overrides)', and 'atmosphere (get/set Atmosphere, createIfMissing)'. This adds high value 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 the tool's function: 'Inspect or change Lighting and environment.' It lists specific actions (get, set, set_time, atmosphere, sky, terrain_props, mood, add_effect, clear_effects) that cover the domain, distinguishing it from siblings like manage_terrain or manage_effects. The verb 'inspect/change' is specific and the resource is clearly defined.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage through its action list, but there are no exclusions or alternative tool references. For example, it doesn't clarify that terrain_props is for terrain visuals, which overlaps with manage_terrain. The only caution is 'Do not invent skybox asset IDs,' which is more of a constraint than a usage guideline.

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