Stage Light Set

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it declares the edit atomic/undoable, lists failure modes ("no such object, not a light"), and discloses the side effect "Emits: light_change." It does not cover permissions, idempotency, or whether omitted fields are left untouched.

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?

Two dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action followed by mechanics, errors, and side effects. The parenthetical page-command note is slightly internal-speak but short enough not to crowd out the useful content.

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 4-param mutation with an existing output schema, this covers action, units, error modes, undo semantics, and emitted events. The only real gap (scene's meaning) is minor against that coverage, and return values are backed by the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it usefully gives units for energy (Blender watts), colour space (linear RGB), and the identifier convention for the light ("the page reads `name` or `light`"). However, the required `scene` parameter is never explained, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb ("Set") and resource (a light's energy and/or colour) with units, so an agent knows exactly what changes. It is distinguishable from stage_object_set or stage_material_set by the light-specific target, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"and / or" implies at least one of energy/colour must be supplied, which is useful implied usage. But there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over stage_object_set/stage_material_set, nor any prerequisite/permission note.

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