Set sun angle and elevation across all atmosphere:clouds layers to keep lighting consistent throughout a generative design.
Set sun angle and elevation across all atmosphere:clouds layers in the design for consistent lighting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sunAngle | Yes | Sun angle 0-360 degrees | |
| sunElevation | Yes | Sun elevation 0-1 (0=horizon, 1=overhead) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely behavioral fact: the change propagates to ALL atmosphere:clouds layers, not just the active one. It says nothing about what happens if no clouds layer exists, whether prior values are overwritten/reversible, or whether an undo step is needed.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the two controlled values, then the scope. No filler, nothing to trim.
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?
For a two-parameter setter with a fully documented schema and no output schema, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining ambiguity is the meaning of the 'atmosphere:clouds' layer qualifier and the no-op case, but neither blocks correct invocation.
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 100% and both parameters document units and ranges (0-360 degrees; 0-1 with horizon/overhead anchors), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond restating 'sun angle and elevation', which is the expected baseline of 3.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (set sun angle and elevation) and pins the scope to 'all atmosphere:clouds layers in the design'. That scoping detail distinguishes it from single-layer mutations, though it never names a sibling like design_set_time_of_day as the alternative for time-based lighting.
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 phrase 'for consistent lighting' hints at the intent (synchronize lighting across multiple cloud layers) but there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion, and no pointer to alternatives such as design_set_time_of_day or design_add_atmosphere. The agent must infer the situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.