stage_set_environment

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses parameter options (environment_type, lighting_preset, intensity range) and return type (SetEnvironmentResponse). Missing details like preconditions (e.g., scene existence) or side effects prevent a higher score.

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?

Description is concise with only essential information, front-loaded, and structured with Args, Returns, and an Example. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 parameters, return type, and provides an example. However, it lacks details about whether the scene must already exist or if the tool is idempotent. Given no output schema, it is fairly complete but could add preconditions.

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%, so description adds full meaning. It lists all 4 parameters with their types or enumerations, including default values in the example. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Set scene environment and lighting' with specific resources (background, ambient lighting, light sources). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle objects, shots, physics, etc., making its unique purpose explicit.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool (to configure environment and lighting), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. The context is sufficient, though exclusions would strengthen guidance.

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