light-create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral side effects and environment assumptions. It only declares the creation action, without mentioning whether the light is added to the current scene, what defaults are used, whether it returns a reference, or how it interacts with the scene. This is insufficient transparency for a create operation.

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 concise and lacks filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately compressed. For a tool with 9 configurable parameters, a single generic sentence is efficient but not structured enough to be genuinely useful.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and multiple sibling light/creation tools, the description is incomplete. It does not state where the object is created, which light types exist, how to choose a type, or what happens after creation. It places most burden on the schema and sibling names, but the description itself is too weak.

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 schema-description coverage is 0%, but the description provides no parameter insight whatsoever. The schema titles and defaults are helpful, but the description doesn't explain relationships like spot_size/spot_blend applying to spot lights, or which parameters matter for different light types. With 9 parameters and no description-level semantics, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('a light object'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling light-related tools like light-set, light-list, and light-report. However, it is very terse and does not provide detail about what 'create' entangles in the current scene, so it does not fully differentiate from similar create-entity tools like camera-create or speaker-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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it relates to alternatives like light-set, light-list, or object-create. The description only says 'Create a light object', which provides implied usage but no explicit context or exclusions.

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