set_world_background

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool accepts either a color (RGB array) or an HDRI path (mutually exclusive), and a default strength of 1.0. This is sufficient for a simple setter tool, though it lacks side-effect warnings (e.g., persistence or costs).

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 concise—two lines of purpose plus Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the core action, followed by parameter details. No redundancy.

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 low complexity (3 parameters, 0 required, no enums) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers the usage context. The sibling tools are numerous but unrelated, and the description does not need to differentiate further.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear semantics: 'color' is an RGB array [r,g,b], 'hdri_path' is an absolute path to HDRI image, 'strength' defaults to 1.0. All three parameters are explained with usage notes, far exceeding schema-only info.

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: 'Set the world background to a solid color or HDRI environment map.' It specifies the verb 'Set' and the resource 'world background', and distinguishes itself by explicitly naming the two input modes (color vs HDRI). No sibling tool has a similar purpose.

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 usage context by explaining the mutual exclusivity of 'color' and 'hdri_path', guiding the agent on parameter selection. However, it does not compare to alternative tools (e.g., set_viewport_shading or set_scene_property), leaving when-to-use and when-not-to-use ambiguous.

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