set_emission

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

While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description adds no additional behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state that an existing emission setting will be overwritten or what exactly gets modified. The description carries minimal burden beyond the annotations, but still fails to explain side effects.

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 sentence, achieving brevity, but it is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential details about the operation, making it too minimal to be helpful. Every word should add value, but here the value is negligible.

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 has three parameters, is marked destructive, and has an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It doesn't mention which material is affected, how the parameters influence the result, or any potential side effects. The agent lacks critical information for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it does not. It only says 'make material emit' without linking the color and strength parameters to any meaningful behavior. The agent must rely solely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient.

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 'Buat material memancar (emissive)' clearly states the tool's function: making a material emissive. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_color or set_transparency, though it could be more specific about targeting the emission shader. The verb-resource relationship is clear.

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 compared to alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing material, or any exclusions. The agent is left without contextual direction.

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