setup_lighting

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful detail about rotation/spot_angle being in degrees and the two input modes, but it omits many behavioral aspects: what happens if both light_type and preset are provided, default values, whether it modifies the current scene, or any return value. This is a significant gap 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 front-loaded sentence that states the primary action, the two input modes, and critical unit details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool's complexity (13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It communicates the core purpose but does not provide enough information about parameter semantics, valid combinations, side effects, or return values for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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. It clarifies the preset enum values and the relationship between light_type and preset, and specifies units for rotation and spot_angle. However, the remaining 10+ parameters (color, range, energy, shadows, position, attenuation, parent_path, spot_angle_attenuation) are left completely unexplained, which is insufficient for a 13-parameter tool.

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 ('Add a 3D light') and specifies the two input modes ('from a light_type or a preset'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like setup_camera_3d or setup_environment. The enumerated presets (sun, indoor, dramatic) further clarify the exact scope.

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 when a 3D light needs to be added and explains the key selection method (light_type or preset), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or preconditions. Usage is decently implied but not fully explicit.

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