set_world_property

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true, which covers idempotency. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—no side effects, permissions, or return behavior. Since the annotation already covers a key trait, the neutral description earns a baseline 3; it neither contradicts nor enhances.

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?

A single, short sentence with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and examples are given immediately. This is an appropriately concise description.

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 is simple, but with a free-form string property and a polymorphic value, an agent needs more context about allowed properties and value structures. There's no link to get_world_info or other discovery tools. Despite having an output schema (per context), the description leaves significant gaps for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives two example property names (color, strength) and implies value types (color likely array, strength number), which adds some meaning. However, it doesn't enumerate valid properties or value formats, leaving the agent to guess. It partially compensates but not fully.

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 clear action (set) and resource (world/environment property), with explicit examples (color, strength). It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_render_settings by focusing on world properties, though it doesn't name alternatives. It is specific enough for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_hdri_world, set_render_settings, or get_world_info. It doesn't mention exclusions or context. An agent cannot infer from the description which tool to pick for a given world-setting task.

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