create_light

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Create" implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects, whether an object is added to the scene, what happens if the name already exists, or how the light is inserted into collections. It lists types but doesn't explain behavioral differences or defaults like type=POINT.

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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action. The type list is efficient. However, it's under-specified, which slightly reduces the score for structure, but it earns points for not wasting 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 the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and only a trivial type list in the description, the context is incomplete. An output schema exists but the description doesn't explain what is returned (e.g., created light name/ID). For a creation tool with no annotation safety hints, more behavioral context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description only mentions types, which correlates with the 'type' parameter, but provides no semantics for name, color, energy, or location. The type list adds some value, but it's minimal; no guidance on coordinate spaces, units, or energy scale is provided.

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 "Create a light. Types: POINT, SUN, SPOT, AREA." clearly states the tool's action (creating a light) and resource (light), distinguishing it from siblings like list_lights, create_light_rig, and set_light_property. It doesn't fully differentiate edge cases from create_light_rig, but the verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use it—when creating a light—but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. It doesn't mention that set_light_property is for modifying existing lights, or that create_light_rig is for rigs. The context is understandable but not explicit about when not to use it.

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