lightprobe.create

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

With no annotations provided, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It confirms the tool creates a light probe, implying mutation, but omits details such as whether creation requires a 3D view, what happens if a probe with the same name exists, or that the return value is the created object. This lack of transparency hinders safe invocation.

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 extremely concise at six words, but this brevity comes at the cost of informativeness. While every word earns its place, the content is too sparse to be helpful. A balanced approach would add more detail without excessive verbosity.

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 output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It fails to inform the agent about parameter relationships, defaults beyond the schema, or any behavior such as error handling or return value format. The tool cannot be used reliably without additional context.

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 input schema has 3 parameters (name, type, location) with 0% coverage, meaning the description does not explain any parameter beyond the schema's titles and defaults. The description 'Create a light probe object' adds no semantic context about how to set name, choose type, or specify location, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate values.

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 states the action (create) and the resource (light probe object), making the tool's purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like lightprobe.set or lightprobe.report, which could cause confusion about which tool to use for modification or reporting.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lightprobe.set (for adjusting existing probes) or lightprobe.list (for listing probes). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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