set_world_sky

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It richly describes visual parameter effects and output return, but does not state that it replaces or modifies existing world sky settings, nor whether the change is reversible or requires specific scene/world context. For a setter with no annotations, this is a meaningful but moderate gap.

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 front-loaded with purpose and visual behavior, then uses a clean Args list for the 10 parameters. Every sentence adds information; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a 10-parameter world-lighting setter with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and visual outcomes well. It is nearly complete, but omits whether existing world sky settings are replaced and how it relates to set_world_background.

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 compensate for all 10 parameters. It does so thoroughly: every parameter has meaning, units or ranges, practical examples such as 0.26 for mid-morning and 0.05 for golden hour, and enum options with tradeoffs like MULTIPLE_SCATTERING being most realistic.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: lighting the scene with a physically based procedural sky and sun. It clearly explains the visual effect and scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling tool set_world_background, which is the main adjacent concept.

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?

It provides clear usage context: realistic daylight, golden hour via low sun elevation, dusk via negative elevation, and pairing with AgX colour management through set_color_management. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this instead of set_world_background or other world-lighting tools.

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