light_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and lists parameters without disclosing side effects, prerequisites (e.g., scene must be open), or how the tool modifies the scene file. Minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and is reasonably concise. The 'Category: Light' line is slightly redundant but harmless. Every sentence serves a purpose, though minor trimming could improve brevity.

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 7 parameters and no output schema details, the description covers basic usage but lacks edge-case handling (e.g., parent node must exist, name uniqueness). The return value is vaguely stated as 'Success message or error description' with no specifics on error conditions.

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 compensates fully. It provides clear explanations for all 7 parameters, including types, defaults, and a deprecation note for light_type. This adds significant meaning 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 source to a 3D scene' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like light_set_properties and light_set_shadow by indicating creation vs modification.

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 implies usage for adding new lights but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No comparison with siblings or conditions are given, only parameter-level notes like the deprecation of PointLight3D.

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