set_environment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond them: it does not say whether activation persists, whether the previous environment is replaced, or whether a render update is triggered.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. It is front-loaded logically but starved of content.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the definition still omits how to obtain a valid environment name, the effect of activation on the current scene, and the language mismatch (French description among English siblings) that may confuse matching. Not sufficient 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?

There is one required parameter with 0% schema description coverage; 'name' is bare in the schema and the description never clarifies that it must be an existing environment identifier (e.g. from list_environments). With low coverage, the description should compensate and it does not.

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?

States a verb ('Active') and a resource ('un environnement de la scène'), so the operation is inferable, but it never explains what an environment is in this scene context or how it differs from sibling setters like set_camera or set_realtime. The agent must guess at the tool's effect.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite, and no reference to list_environments, the obvious companion tool for discovering valid values. Usage is only implied by the name and the single required argument.

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