setup_lighting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key trait an agent needs: re-running removes previous Roxy lights, i.e. it replaces rather than accumulates. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or a response/return format, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one behavioral fact that matters (replacement behavior). No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 7-parameter lighting tool with 86% schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope and mutation behavior. It omits how preset and hdri interact and leaves hdri_strength undocumented, so it is strong but not fully complete.

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 86%, so the schema documents nearly all parameters and the baseline is 3. The description's mention of colour temperatures and HDRI reflections loosely maps to the hdri/preset semantics, but it adds no format or interaction detail—notably hdri_strength has no schema description and is not covered here either.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Replace the lighting with a calibrated rig") and adds qualifiers that reveal intent: subject-scaled, AgX-friendly energies, colour temperatures, HDRI reflections. There is no lighting-named sibling to differentiate against, so the missing sibling contrast costs little, keeping it just short of 5.

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?

"Run it again any time" implies the tool is safe to re-invoke and therefore idempotent, which is useful usage context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like setup_camera, render_image, or apply_material, and no when-not condition, leaving usage only implied.

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