lightprobe-create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the creation action but does not detail side effects, required permissions, or whether existing light probes are affected. There is no mention of return values or error conditions, leaving the agent under-informed 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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is underspecified given the three parameters. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks essential details, making it feel more like an under-specification than efficient conciseness.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It offers no information about the parameters, types, location default, or any context about how this fits with sibling lightprobe tools. A create operation with multiple options should provide at least a summary of what the parameters control.

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% — the description does not mention any of the three parameters (name, type, location). While the schema titles and enum give some context (e.g., type choices), the description adds no additional meaning, forcing the agent to infer parameter usage solely from raw schema. This fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Create a light probe object' clearly states the verb ('Create') and the resource ('light probe object'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like lightprobe-list, lightprobe-report, and lightprobe-set. It precisely identifies the action and target, making it unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies creation, the description does not mention any prerequisites or contexts (e.g., requiring an active scene) nor does it reference other lightprobe tools as alternatives. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Create'.

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