create_light

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the act of creating and adding a light, but gives no detail on side effects, selection behavior, failure modes, or whether existing lights are affected. The minimal wording does not adequately disclose the tool's behavior.

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 concise and front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler words or repetition. However, its structure is minimal—a single sentence with no sub-clauses or additional explanation—which limits its usefulness despite the brevity.

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 six parameters with zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema whose content is unknown, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, scene impact, default behaviors, or how the tool interacts with the broader scene. This is well below what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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%, and the description does not compensate. It only mentions 'type' without explaining the meaning of the other five parameters (color, energy, location, rotation, name). The schema itself lacks types and descriptions, so the agent has no way to infer parameter semantics from the description alone.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('light'), and mentions the 'type' parameter, which is a key differentiator. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like create_three_point_lighting or set_light_property, so the agent must infer context from the name alone.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_three_point_lighting or set_light_property. There is no mention of prerequisites, target scene state, or which type values are acceptable. The agent is left to guess the appropriate context.

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