create_light

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description indicates creation (a mutating operation) and provides some parameter semantics, but does not disclose whether this creates a new object, what the default values are, whether it requires an active object/context, or what the return/result is. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful 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 compact sentence front-loads the essential parameter semantics with units and meanings. Zero filler, every clause earns its place. Very efficient for an 11-parameter tool.

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 a creation operation with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage. The description covers the core parameters and their units, which is the most critical information. However, it omits spot_blend, doesn't describe the return value (no output schema), and doesn't state behavioral defaults. For a complex creation tool, this is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds real semantics: type values (POINT/SUN/SPOT/AREA), units for energy (watts), radius meaning (soft shadow), size meaning (area light dimensions), spot_size in radians, and target semantics (point object or coordinates). It covers 6 of 11 parameters well. It misses spot_blend entirely, and doesn't clarify color array format, but the covered parameters are genuinely useful 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 states a specific verb ('新建' / create) with the resource (灯光 / light), and enumerates the light types (POINT/SUN/SPOT/AREA). It differentiates from siblings like set_light (modify existing) and point_light_at (orient only) by implying this tool creates a new light. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative or state 'use set_light to modify existing lights'.

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 implies usage (create a new light with specified parameters) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't state that set_light should be used for modifying existing lights, or that point_light_at handles targeting separately. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer this is the creation entry point, but the when/not alternatives are left implicit.

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