game_light_2d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create/configure' signals mutation but reveals nothing about whether changes persist, require a loaded scene, overwrite existing lights, or return any confirmation. For a tool that modifies scene state, this is a substantial transparency 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?

A single 7-word sentence with zero waste. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and every word earns its place. This is appropriately economical for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

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?

This is a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description provides only the barest purpose statement. It does not explain the three action variants, the create-versus-configure distinction, required parent context, or return behavior. An agent has little guidance on how to invoke it correctly beyond the raw schema.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds marginal value by hinting at the create_occluder action through the phrase 'light occluders', but the create-vs-configure split across action and nodePath is left entirely to the schema.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('create/configure') with a precise resource ('2D lights and light occluders'). It clearly identifies the domain and distinguishes itself from siblings like game_light_3d, game_shape_2d, and game_mesh_instance without needing to open the schema.

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 '2D' qualifier implies when this tool is appropriate versus game_light_3d, but the description never explicitly names an alternative or states exclusion conditions. An agent must infer the 2D/3D split from the tool name rather than from guidance in the description.

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