add_3point_lighting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral details. It states it adds a rig but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether existing lights are affected, what light types are created, or how they are positioned). This is insufficient 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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is well front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the purpose and parameters adequately but omits details about the created lights (e.g., type, distance from subject, arrangement). For a simple tool this is acceptable, but more completeness would improve agent understanding.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly: subject_name details default behavior, and all energy parameters include units (watts) and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's raw titles.

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 'Add a classic 3-point lighting rig' with specific components (key, fill, back/rim), distinguishing it from sibling 'add_light' which adds a single light. The verb 'add' and resource 'lighting rig' are well-defined.

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 indicates when to use this tool (for a 3-point lighting setup centered on a subject) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like 'add_light'. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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