create-lights

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: units for x/y and radii, darkness activation range, walls/vision effects, per-light error isolation, return of created ids, and GM-only restriction. It adds context beyond the schema, such as 'NOT pixels' and 'torch only lights once the scene dims'.

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 a single paragraph of moderate length (approx. 100 words) that front-loads purpose and then details parameters. It is packed with information but remains readable; however, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) for even easier scanning.

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 complexity (nested array, many optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers main behaviors, parameters, and outcomes (returns created ids). It mentions per-light error isolation but could elaborate on what that entails. Overall, it is fairly 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: clarifies units for dim/bright (grid-distance units, NOT pixels), gives examples for animationType (torch, flame, pulse), and mentions default values (alpha ~0.3, luminosity 0.5, darknessMin ~0.1). This adds significant value.

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 verb 'Place' and the resource 'AMBIENT LIGHTS', with specific examples (torches, braziers, magical glows). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create-drawings or create-tiles by focusing exclusively on light sources, and notes it is GM-only.

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 description implicitly indicates usage for placing ambient lights on a scene. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, relying on the sibling list for distinction. This is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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