create_light_rig

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it creates lights and may aim at a target, but does not explain whether it replaces existing lights, requires a selected object, or has other side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded, using two sentences to state the core purpose. However, the brevity may be the cause of missing critical information, but as a standalone structure, it is efficient and not verbose.

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 lack of annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and 4 unrequired parameters, the description is insufficient. It provides a high-level overview but omits essential details about parameter semantics and behavioral consequences, leaving the agent under-informed 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 coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the parameters (key_energy, fill_energy, rim_energy, target). While the phrase 'key, fill, rim' hints at the light types, the description fails to clarify that energy parameters control intensity or how the target parameter behaves. There is no added semantic value.

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's function: creating a three-point lighting setup with key, fill, and rim lights. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_light or set_light_property.

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 conveys a clear use case: setting up a standard three-point lighting rig, with an optional target. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to recognize when this tool is intended.

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