octane_create_light

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the tool queues a command (suggesting asynchronous operation), creates a node, wires it to the render target, and warns about unsupported pins. However, it omits crucial details such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, permissions required, or side effects on existing lights.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence provides necessary context about creation and warning behavior. However, it could be more efficient by integrating parameter explanations without excessive verbosity.

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?

With 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. The tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention output or return value. The description lacks guidance on parameter semantics and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description does not explain any parameter beyond implying that light_type can be set via the listed types. For example, 'size', 'angle', 'hdr_path', 'position', 'direction', and 'intensity' are not described at all, leaving an agent with no guidance on their purpose or valid values.

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 ('Queue a native light creation command') and the resource (light types: area, sun, environment, emissive). It explains the outcome: creates an Octane light/environment node and wires it to the active render target. This distinguishes it from siblings like octane_set_lighting (likely modifies existing) and octane_create_material (creates materials, not lights).

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 implies usage for creating various light types but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that unsupported pins are acknowledged with a warning, but no guidance on prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or comparison with sibling tools like octane_set_lighting or octane_create_test_cube.

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