set_light_property

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

The idempotentHint annotation already signals repeatability. The description adds a small behavioral cue by noting that 'size' is for area lights, implying some properties are context-dependent. It does not disclose other side effects, error conditions, or whether the target light must exist.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and then provides a concise list of properties. No filler or redundant information.

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 simple setter tool, the description is mostly adequate, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it omits the value format for each property and does not mention that the light must exist or that the property list is exhaustive. This leaves some important gaps 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%, so the description must carry the burden. It lists valid values for the 'property' parameter, which is valuable. However, it does not map each property to its expected 'value' type (e.g., color likely an array, use_shadow boolean). This leaves ambiguity for correctly invoking the tool.

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 action ('Set') and the resource ('a light property'), then enumerates the specific properties supported. This distinguishes it from sibling set_* tools (e.g., set_material_property, set_world_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?

Usage is implied by the tool name and description—it is for modifying light properties. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear enough but not fully explicit.

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