create_light

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only enumerates parameters. It does not state whether the light is authored into the current stage, what happens on failure, whether an existing node with the same name is overwritten, or what is returned. For a creation/mutation tool this is a real gap.

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 front-loaded sentence for purpose followed by a compact, scannable arg list. No filler, though it could omit a few redundant restatements (e.g., "Light intensity" for intensity).

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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the parameter coverage is good, but the missing behavioral context (return value, overwrite semantics, required scene state) leaves the definition only minimally adequate for 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 description coverage is 0% and the schema defines no enums, yet the description explains all six parameters and crucially enumerates the valid light_type values ("dome", "distant", "rect", "sphere", "disk", "cylinder") and the [r,g,b] / [x,y,z] formats that the schema does not convey. This adds substantial meaning over the raw schema.

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 and resource: creating a USD light in a LOP network. An agent can distinguish it from read tools like list_lights and mutation tools like set_light_properties, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling create_light_rig (single light vs. a rig).

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 versus create_light_rig or create_lop_node, and no prerequisites (e.g., must a current LOP network exist, does it require a stage). It simply describes an action with no context for selection.

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