Assign an image file as the sky background or clear it with an empty path to control the environment backdrop in Marmoset Toolbag.
Use an image as the sky's background; an empty path clears it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | No | ||
| path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the useful behavioral detail that an empty path clears the background, but says nothing about whether an existing sky is required or what the ref parameter controls.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with the main action and clearing behavior front-loaded. There is no wasted text.
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 mutation tool with two undocumented parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing ref semantics and lack of usage context make it incomplete.
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 carry parameter meaning. It only hints that path can be empty to clear the background and never mentions the ref parameter at all, leaving a key input undocumented.
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 states a specific action ('Use an image as the sky's background') and clarifies the clearing behavior, so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like sky_set or sky_load, but the resource is precise enough.
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 only usage hint is that an empty path clears the background. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over sky_set, sky_load, or sky_compute_procedural, and no prerequisites or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.