set_fog

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. Description adds that changes are 'runtime-only preview (lost on reload)' but also mentions persistent code change option, creating slight ambiguity. This partially extends transparency but lacks clarity on the tool's actual persistence behavior.

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?

Description is two sentences but somewhat repetitive ('runtime preview' mentioned twice). Still front-loaded and to the point, earning a 4.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and annotations providing destructive/idempotent hints, the description covers key aspects: what it modifies, parameter listing, user consent requirement, and ephemeral nature. Lacks details on error handling or side effects but is adequate.

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% and description lists the same parameters without adding extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Modify scene fog' and lists specific parameters (color, near/far, density, background). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'fog_details' which retrieves fog information.

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?

Description provides strong guidance: 'ASK the user first: runtime preview or persistent code change?' and emphasizes user consent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative approaches for persistent changes.

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