manage_lighting

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already indicate. It does not mention that actions like 'build_lighting' may be time-consuming, or that 'ensure_single_sky_light' might modify or delete existing lights. With annotations present but generic, the description adds no additional context about side effects or requirements.

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 single, concise sentence that front-loads the core capabilities. It is appropriately sized for a tool with many capabilities, avoiding unnecessary verbosity while covering the main areas. Every word contributes to the overall meaning.

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 the tool's high complexity (42 parameters, 15 actions) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not mention the 'action' enum, the variety of possible actions, or how to select between them. It provides only a general overview, leaving users without enough context to safely and effectively use the tool.

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?

The schema has 42 parameters with only 26% description coverage, so the description should compensate. It does not explain any specific parameters, but it does mention high-level concepts (GI, shadows, fog) that map to parameter groups. However, it does not clarify the meaning of 'action' enum values, 'lightType', or other key fields, leaving significant gaps.

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 purpose: spawning lights (point, spot, rect, sky) and configuring GI, shadows, volumetric fog, and building lighting. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools that manage assets, blueprints, or other domains.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention alternative tools, exclusions, or specific conditions that would trigger its use. The only hint is the name 'manage_lighting', but there is no explicit usage context.

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