add_light

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

The description explains parameter-specific behavior like rotation controlling direction for SPOT/AREA and size for shadow softness, but does not disclose broader behavioral traits such as side effects, limits, or prerequisites. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden, which it partially meets.

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 brief (three sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and presents details in a structured list. 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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers key parameters but misses 'name' and 'location', and does not mention return values or prerequisites. Could be more thorough.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains type, energy, color, size, and rotation, but omits 'name' and 'location'. This adds value over the schema but is incomplete for all parameters.

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 adds a light to the scene and lists the light types. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'light_add', which likely performs a similar function, leaving ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'light_add' or 'light_setup_studio'. The agent receives no context for selecting this tool over siblings.

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