set_world_property

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

The description discloses no behavioral traits beyond the verb 'Set', indicating a mutation. The idempotentHint annotation covers idempotency, but the description adds no further context about side effects, valid value ranges, or error behavior. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still contributes minimal behavioral transparency.

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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Set'. It efficiently communicates the resource and example properties with no filler, earning 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?

The tool is relatively simple (2 required params, idempotent annotation, and an output schema exists), so the description covers the basics. However, it lacks a complete list of valid property names and value formats, which could leave an agent uncertain about non-example properties. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 partially compensates by naming 'color' (likely array) and 'strength' (likely number), adding meaning to the 'value' parameter. However, it does not specify exact value formats (e.g., color range or color space) or list other possible property names, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 the specific verb 'Set' and clearly identifies the resource as 'world/environment property', with concrete examples 'color, strength'. This distinguishes it from sibling property setters like set_material_property or set_light_property. However, it does not enumerate all possible properties, slightly limiting full clarity.

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 usage for world/environment properties but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for world creation (e.g., create_hdri_world). The context is only inferred from the resource name.

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