set_light_linking

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses that the list is replaced on every call (overwrite semantics), that an empty list clears the link, and that there is a 1000-object cap. It stops short of saying what happens on invalid object names or whether the light must already exist, which would complete the mutation contract.

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?

Purpose leads, then use cases, then mechanical semantics, then structured Args/Returns — well front-loaded with no filler. The Returns line is largely redundant given an output schema exists, a small wasted sentence.

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?

All four parameters are explained, the replace-per-call mutation semantics are explicit, and an output schema handles the return shape. For a 4-param mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 must fully compensate — and it documents all four parameters. Beyond the raw enum values it explains that role selects lit objects vs shadow casters, that mode means 'only these' vs 'everything except these', that light_name may also be an emissive object, and it adds the 1000-object constraint on 'objects'.

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?

States a specific verb ('Limit which objects a light lights') and resource (light linking, receivers/blockers) in the first sentence, and immediately names the two axes it operates on. An agent can distinguish this from set_light_property or set_shadow_settings without inspecting the schema.

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?

Provides concrete motivating scenarios (rim light on hero only, fill light skipping background) and explains the empty-list case, which tells the agent when this tool applies. It does not name an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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