ue_setup_sky_atmosphere

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral details: find-or-spawns actors, recaptures sky, and reuses existing rig. No contradiction with annotations. Additional context on limits or side effects would be beneficial but is not critical given annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key components. The second sentence explains two key parameters and idempotency. Every word earns its place, and the structure is logical.

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 moderate complexity (multiple actors, parameters) and existing annotations, the description provides a good overview but leaves gaps. Parameter documentation is incomplete, and it does not mention the output schema (though exists). The description is adequate for basic use but not fully comprehensive for all scenarios.

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%. The description explains only two parameters (sun_elevation, sun_azimuth) with degrees and compass heading. The other four parameter names (fog, clouds, fog_density, sun_intensity) are self-explanatory to some extent but lack precision. For example, sun_intensity's default null and anyOf is unexplained, and fog_density's unit is missing. With 0% schema coverage, the description should document all parameters more thoroughly.

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 builds or updates the sky/atmosphere rig in one call, listing specific components (DirectionalLight, SkyAtmosphere, SkyLight, fog, clouds) and action (recapturing sky). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ue_set_time_of_day, which adjust time, not setup.

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 gives clear context (build/update sky rig) and notes idempotency, implying safe reuse. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool versus alternatives like mood presets or when manual setup is preferred.

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