apply_depth_lighting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral information by stating the operation is 'deterministic' and that it preserves transparency and source data, implying non-destructive output. It omits important prerequisites, such as whether a depth or normal map is required, how unsupported inputs are handled, or the exact result of applying lighting.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every qualifier—deterministic, depth-aware, directional, preserving transparency and source data—adds meaningful information and earns its place.

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 six parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, this definition is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. An agent cannot tell what depth information the tool relies on, how the parameters interact, or what output behavior to expect beyond writing to output_filename.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter specifically. It only gestures at 'directional' and never clarifies how ambient, strength, or format affect the result; the agent must rely entirely on parameter names, enums, and defaults in the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('sprite') with precise qualifiers: 'deterministic depth-aware directional lighting.' This clearly distinguishes it from lighting-adjacent siblings like generate_normal_map, apply_convolution, or generate_sprite_shadow without needing to inspect schemas.

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 implies a clear use case—adding directional depth lighting to a sprite—and notes that transparency and source data are preserved. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions, so usage guidance remains inferential rather than explicit.

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