set_sky_light_properties

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: a partial-update contract ('only the supplied fields change') and the applied_count/applied result semantics. It does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive, but the partial-update and return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

Verb+resource is front-loaded, behavior and return shape follow, and there is little filler. The long inline field list is slightly dense but earns its place by naming the covered properties, and the explicit 'Returns' line compensates for the absent output schema.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape, the color encoding, and the partial-update semantics. It is nearly complete; only the destructiveness/permission implications are left unexplained.

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 100%, so the schema documents all ten parameters. The description's field enumeration and color-format note ([R,G,B] or [R,G,B,A]) largely restate what the schema already says, 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 precise verb (Set), a specific resource (SkyLight actor's USkyLightComponent) and enumerates the exact field families being modified (intensity, color, indirect/volumetric intensity, lower-hemisphere color, occlusion). This clearly separates it from the read counterpart get_sky_light_properties and the generic set_light_properties.

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 target (a SkyLight actor) is implied by the name and description, giving some context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or statement of when to prefer this over set_light_properties or the other light-setting siblings. Usage must be inferred.

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