world-set

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It says 'Set' but does not disclose whether the operation is partial, reversible, requires an existing world, affects rendering immediately, or returns any confirmation. This is a common but noticeable gap 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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the tool's purpose.

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 simple setter with only two optional parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the description could have noted preconditions or value conventions (e.g., color values, strength bounds) to make it fully self-contained.

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%, and the description mostly echoes the parameter titles: 'world color' and 'background strength'. It adds the useful 'and/or' point, but it does not explain what the color array should contain, typical value ranges, defaults, or how both parameters interact.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') plus a clear resource ('scene world') and the exact fields it modifies ('color and/or background strength'). It distinguishes this from sibling reporting tools like world-report and from other world actions.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you want to change the world color or background strength. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives, mention prerequisites such as an active world, or state when this tool should not be used.

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