ap_set_envmap_params

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry safety and side-effect disclosure. It does disclose a concrete side effect: 'direct writes to project_t', indicating immediate mutation of project state. However, it does not comment on reversibility, whether the project must be saved, or whether this affects rendering or undo. This is partial transparency.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and listing both parameters. The parenthetical side-effect note is useful and does not bloat the definition.

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?

For a two-optional-parameter setter, the description plus schema cover the what and the parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits whether a project must be open, what the operation returns, and whether writes require a save to persist. The cryptic 'project_t' reference also assumes internal knowledge.

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%, and the schema already describes angle as radians and strength as a multiplier with a minimum. The description adds no parameter details beyond restating the two properties in prose. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Set') and resource ('environment map'), and explicitly names the two mutable aspects (strength, rotation angle). It reads distinctly from siblings like ap_import_envmap and ap_set_config, so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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 description states the operation directly, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not mention any alternatives or exclusions, nor prerequisites like an open project or an imported envmap. With no explicit when-to-use guidance, it relies on the tool name and sibling context.

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