createLight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. 'Add a light' implies a write operation that modifies the scene, but it doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or how the light integrates with the scene (e.g., immediate visibility). The description lacks details on side effects or system behavior.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable without unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'adding a light' entails in this context (e.g., 3D scene rendering), what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral nuances. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for operational details.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, not even mentioning the required 'lightType' parameter. However, since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a light to the scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'updateLight' or 'deleteLight' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'createObject' or 'createParticles' which might also add scene elements.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an active scene), when not to use it, or how it relates to siblings like 'updateLight' for modifications or 'createObject' for non-light objects.

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