sky_compute_procedural

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful side effect that it recomputes the sky after switching mode, but does not say what happens to existing manual sky settings or whether the switch is reversible.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mode switch and the recompute are both stated compactly. It is arguably too terse for the gaps it leaves, but nothing is wasted.

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 needn't be explained, and the core action is clear. However, with an undocumented 'ref' parameter and no guidance on how this interacts with sibling sky tools, an agent still has open questions before calling it correctly.

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?

The single optional 'ref' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and the description never mentions it, so an agent gets no guidance on what to pass or when to omit it. The description only characterizes the operation, not the argument.

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-and-resource pair ('switch the sky to procedural mode ... and recompute it'), which is far more informative than the bare name. It implicitly separates itself from sky_set/sky_load by naming the procedural mode, but never explicitly contrasts with those siblings.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for entering a sun-by-time/day/location lighting setup. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. sky_set, sky_load, or sky_set_background_image, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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