updateLight

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it updates a light without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., on scene rendering), or error handling (e.g., invalid ID). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to stating the core purpose efficiently.

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 complexity (5 parameters with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral context, or usage guidelines, leaving the agent with insufficient information to invoke the tool correctly beyond its basic intent.

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 must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'id' refers to, the format of 'color', the range of 'intensity', the coordinate system for 'position', or the effect of 'castShadow'. This fails to address the 5 parameters, including a nested object.

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 ('Update') and resource ('an existing light by id'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'updateObject' or 'createLight', which would require mentioning specific light properties or contrasting with creation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing light ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'createLight' for new lights or 'updateObject' 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.