create_hdri_world

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set up HDRI environment lighting') but doesn't disclose whether this replaces existing world lighting, whether the filepath must reference an already-loaded image or a path on disk, what happens to the existing world setup, or any side effects. For a setup/mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could earn its place better by adding a note about the strength parameter or side effects without becoming verbose.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and only 2 parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete: it doesn't clarify the filepath semantics (loaded image vs. disk path), the effect of strength, or whether existing HDRI setup is replaced. An agent would need to open the schema or guess to call this correctly.

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 mentions 'from an image file' which maps to the filepath parameter, but it doesn't explain the 'strength' parameter at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's bare property names, leaving the agent to guess what 'strength' controls (likely light intensity, but not stated).

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 ('Set up') and resource ('HDRI environment lighting from an image file'), which clearly identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_light and set_world_property by focusing on HDRI environment setup, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage context: setting up HDRI environment lighting from an image file. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over create_light or set_world_property, nor does it mention prerequisites like the image needing to be loaded first. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the primary use case, but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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