daz_apply_lighting_preset

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: removal of existing lights with same names, relative positioning to subject's bounding box, aiming at face height, and disabling the dome. However, it does not cover potential mutations beyond those mentioned, such as whether the scene is saved or if permissions are required.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, behavioral details, preset list with explanations, args section, and returns example. It is concise yet comprehensive, with no wasted words.

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 description covers side effects, parameter defaults, preset explanations, and return format (including JSON example). It does not mention error conditions or limitations, but given the presence of an output schema, it is largely sufficient.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains both parameters: 'preset' with a list of options and descriptions, and 'subject_label' with default behavior (scene origin at 170cm). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 states the tool creates a professional photography lighting setup. It details the actions: removing existing lights, creating new lights relative to the subject, aiming at face height, and setting environment mode. This differentiates it clearly from sibling tools like daz_apply_camera_angle or daz_apply_composition_rule.

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 explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implicitly suggests use for lighting setup but lacks explicit guidance on context or exclusions.

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