light_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions operations like 'Scaffold' and 'Update' but does not detail side effects, permission requirements, or whether operations are destructive or reversible. The canonical call shape and compatibility alias are mentioned, but the broader behavioral profile (e.g., impact on scene, potential overwriting) is absent.

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 structured with a clear header and a bulleted list of ops, each with a one-line signature and brief comment. It front-loads the overall purpose and uses consistent formatting. While long, it is dense with useful information and avoids fluff, though the canonical call shape note could be considered slightly redundant given 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?

Given the tool's complexity (six distinct operations) and the generic schema, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to construct calls. It includes the canonical call shape and per-op parameter details. The output schema exists (though not shown), which may cover return values, so the description's lack of return-value explanation is acceptable. It covers operation semantics adequately, though it could add examples of valid parameter values.

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?

The schema provides only a generic 'op' enum and a 'params' object with no property definitions (0% schema coverage). The description compensates thoroughly by listing every operation with its parameters, defaults, and types, such as scaffold_light_3d(type, parent_path, name, color, energy, shadows, range, attenuation, spot_angle). This gives agents complete understanding of how to construct parameters beyond 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 clearly identifies the tool's domain: '2D and 3D Lighting, Shadow Tuning, Decal Projection, and Reflection/GI Probes.' It enumerates specific operations with detailed signatures, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle other domains like mesh, animation, or physics.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The domain is clear, but there is no guidance on selection criteria among the many sibling tools. It implies usage through the listed ops, but lacks exclusions or alternative routing.

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