light-set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects, mutation risks, or any special behavior. The description only says 'Set common light data properties' with no indication of whether this is destructive, reversible, affects other properties, requires permissions, or returns anything. This is insufficient 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?

At one sentence, it is concise, but the brevity is actually under-specification. It does not front-load any useful details, and every word is generic. There is no attempt to prioritize the most important aspects (like that it requires a light name). This is not effective conciseness; it is telegraphic.

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?

With six parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description should provide substantial context about what it does, what it returns, and any side effects. It provides none. The agent cannot adequately plan a call or understand the effect of changing 'size' vs 'energy' without additional research.

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%, meaning the description does not mention any of the six parameters (size, color, light, energy, spot_size, spot_blend). With zero description compensation, the agent only has the schema titles to infer meaning. The description provides no additional context on parameter relationships, defaults, or special requirements, leaving semantic gaps.

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 the verb 'Set' and the resource 'light data properties', indicating the tool modifies properties of a light object. It is clear that this is a setter, but it's ambiguous what specific properties are considered 'common' and it doesn't distinguish from other light-related tools (e.g., light-create, light-report). It also doesn't clarify if it's for all light types or specific ones.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, recommended use cases, or when not to use it. Given the context signals include many other light and scene tools, this lack of usage guidance leaves the agent to guess.

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