build_lighting

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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false) by disclosing the exact persistent side effect: writing quality and OnlyBuildCurrentLevel=false into the editor per-project LightingBuildOptions. It also explains the async contract and that it returns immediately. This is meaningful behavioral context the annotations alone do not convey.

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 the action and scope, then the side effect, then the return shape — logical ordering with no filler. It is slightly dense but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

With one parameter fully documented in the schema, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps by stating the side effect and inlining the return shape { quality, started, note }. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing.

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 100% and the single quality parameter is fully documented (allowed values, case-insensitivity, default). The description only references 'quality' without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Start an asynchronous static lighting build') and resource ('all levels in the editor world'), and explicitly narrows scope with '(not only the current one)'. An agent can distinguish it from other build/rebuild siblings without opening the schema.

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 conveys the async, fire-and-forget nature ('return started without waiting for the result'), which is implied usage context, but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as build_hlod or rebuild_navigation, nor any preconditions. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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