modify_light

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 says 'Modify properties', giving no context on side effects, failure behavior, whether the light must already exist, or how the modification affects the current stage. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clean parameter list. No wasted words, though the docstring format is minimal and could benefit from brief usage guidance.

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 only covers the obvious parameters and purpose. It omits behavioral details, error handling, and clarity on the two metadata parameters. Given an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, but the lack of any operational context for a scene-mutating tool makes this incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for prim_path (which light), color (RGB array with 0-1 range), and intensity (new value). However, command_id and idempotency_key are left entirely undocumented, and intensity lacks units or range context.

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 states a specific verb ('Modify') and resource ('existing light'), and lists the exact properties (intensity, color) that can be changed. This distinguishes it from sibling create_light by emphasizing 'existing'.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. The phrase 'existing light' hints at when it applies, but there is no direction about choosing this over create_light, set_typed_attribute, or other mutation tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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