light_setup_three_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states it sets up three lights but does not disclose whether it creates new lights, auto-positions them at specific angles, modifies existing lights, or any side effects. It lacks detail on the resulting light configuration and potential scene modifications.

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 well-structured. It starts with a one-line summary, then a brief purpose statement, followed by a clean 'Args' section. Every sentence is informative and there is no extraneous text.

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 relatively simple, but the description lacks details such as whether it creates new lights or modifies existing ones, default light positions, and what happens if lights already exist. With no output schema and no annotations, an agent might need additional context to use it correctly. However, it provides enough to understand the basic function.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description's 'Args' section adds meaning: clarifies 'target_location' as center point, identifies which power corresponds to which light, and explains 'distance' as distance from target. This goes beyond the schema's bare property definitions.

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 sets up classic three-point lighting (key, fill, rim/back) for product shots and character renders. It uses a specific verb 'set up' and resource 'lighting', and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'light_add' and 'light_setup_studio' by specifying the classic three-point configuration.

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 mentions it is for 'professional lighting setup for product shots and character renders' but does not explicitly provide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'light_setup_studio' or 'light_add'. There is no guidance on when not to use it or prerequisites.

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