create_light

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action and notes that prim_path is auto-generated if not provided, but it does not reveal side effects such as what happens if the path already exists, whether a stage must be open, or how idempotency is handled. This is a significant 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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every line in the Args block adds useful information. There is no redundant restating of schema defaults or filler text.

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?

The description is adequate for basic use of the tool, especially since an output schema exists and return values do not need to be described. However, it lacks usage context, side-effect caveats, and explanation of command_id/idempotency_key, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent making reliable calls.

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 compensates well by explaining 6 of the 8 parameters: light_type with allowed values, position/rotation array formats, color range 0-1, rotation in degrees, and prim_path fallback behavior. It omits command_id and idempotency_key, and does not give intensity units, but the covered parameters are meaningfully clarified.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a light in the scene.' It also lists the supported light types, which makes the tool's scope specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'modify_light' or other creation tools, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 such as modify_light, or about prerequisites like an open stage or scene. Usage is only implied by the word 'Create' and the tool name, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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