light_create

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context — attribute availability varies by build, and 5.02 lacks shape/physical units — but says nothing about defaults, failure modes, or scene requirements for a mutation tool.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action and types, with supporting detail in a trailing parenthetical. Efficient, though the parenthetical packs several distinct ideas (attribute list, attribute discovery, version limits) into one clause without separation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. Given the version-sensitivity of light attributes and the opaque attributes object, the description provides the necessary pointers; only the lack of any scene/prerequisite context keeps it from being fully complete.

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, and it does for the key gaps: it names the valid light_type values (the schema has no enum) and lists concrete keys for the opaque attributes object (brightness, color [r, g, b], castShadows, width, lengthX, lengthY, spotAngle, useTemperature, temperature). It says nothing about name/position/rotation semantics, but those are largely self-evident.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a light') and immediately enumerates the valid light types ('omni', 'spot' or 'directional'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. The create verb inherently separates it from siblings like light_list or object_create.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb, and the parenthetical points the agent at object_attributes to discover which attributes a given Toolbag build supports, plus a version caveat for 5.02. However, it never states when to prefer this over object_create/object_duplicate or what prerequisites (e.g. active scene) are needed.

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