create_three_point_lighting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create' without detailing side effects—whether existing lights are replaced or supplemented, whether the subject_name affects positioning, or what the returned result is. The mutation aspect is implied by the verb but not elaborated, leaving significant uncertainty for an agent invoking the tool.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. It is maximally concise with no filler or redundant information. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose, making it appropriately sized for what little it conveys.

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?

Creating a three-point lighting setup is a complex operation involving multiple lights, positioning, and subject targeting. The description misses essential context: what lights are created, how energies map to specific lights, whether subject_name is required, how it interacts with existing scene lights, and what the output schema contains. With no annotations and minimal schema coverage, the description is vastly incomplete for an agent to call the tool 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 has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter. Although parameter names like key_energy, rim_energy, and fill_energy are somewhat self-explanatory in a lighting context, the description adds no value to clarify their roles, defaults, or how subject_name is used. The agent must infer meaning entirely from parameter names, which is insufficient for a complex setup tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a classic three-point lighting setup aimed at a subject.' It clearly indicates the action and what is being created, and the phrase 'three-point lighting' distinguishes it from generic light creation tools like create_light. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_light or set_light_property. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or when not to use it. An agent has no hint whether this is a convenience shortcut or a standalone setup, leaving usage ambiguous.

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