deleteLight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove' (implying destructive mutation) but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible (e.g., via 'undo'), requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting scene lighting). The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a destructive operation.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Remove a light') and efficiently specifies the parameter requirement ('by id'). Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after deletion (e.g., success/failure response, error conditions), whether the action can be undone, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'undo' or 'getSceneState'. For a mutation tool with no structured support, more context is needed.

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?

The description mentions 'by id', which clarifies the purpose of the single parameter beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adds marginal value. The baseline for 0 parameters would be 4, but with one parameter and minimal explanation, a score of 3 reflects adequate but not comprehensive parameter semantics.

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 ('Remove') and target resource ('a light from the scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'deleteObject' by specifying 'light' as the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'updateLight' or 'createLight' beyond the verb choice.

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 like 'deleteObject' (for non-light objects) or 'updateLight' (for modifying instead of removing). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., light must exist), consequences, or typical scenarios for deletion.

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