godot_configure_lightmap_gi

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

Annotations are all false, providing no meaningful safety or behavioral signals. The description only says 'configure,' which suggests side effects but doesn't disclose whether nodes are created, modified, or baked, nor any access requirements. This is a significant gap for a tool with substantial configuration impact.

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, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the core action and resource types. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite the tool's complexity (many parameters, multiple GI types), the description is too minimal. It doesn't explain prerequisites, side effects, expected scene state, or how it relates to baking workflows. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral and usage context.

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 no parameters, and schema description coverage is 0% (the top-level 'params' parameter has no description). While the nested schema properties have useful descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to infer how to map high-level intent to the 'params' 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 states a clear action (Configure) and a specific resource (3D GI pipelines) with concrete examples (LightmapGI, VoxelGI, ReflectionProbe). This distinguishes it from many unrelated siblings, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from godot_bake_lightmaps.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_bake_lightmaps or godot_configure_environment. The description implies configuration but doesn't state prerequisites, recommended scenarios, or exclusions.

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