create_light

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

Annotations already declare this as a mutating/destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds no behavioral context beyond listing light types, such as how it affects the scene, selection, or existing lights. This is minimal but acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely short and front-loads the verb and object, which is good for scanning. However, it under-specifies a tool with 8 parameters, making it feel incomplete rather than efficiently concise. It could be 4 if the schema were richer, but here it is too sparse.

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 complexity (8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, existing output schema), the description is far from complete. It provides no context on how parameters interact, what the created light object's defaults are, or common use cases. The output schema doesn't compensate for missing input semantics.

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 bears the burden of explaining all 8 parameters. It only reveals possible values for light_type, leaving name, color, energy, shadow, location, area_size, and spot_angle completely undefined. This is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 states the verb 'Buat' (Create) and resource 'cahaya' (light), and explicitly lists the four supported types (POINT/SUN/SPOT/AREA). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create_camera or setup_three_point_lighting.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like needing a specific light type, or when setup_three_point_lighting might be more appropriate. No exclusions or contextual cues are provided.

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