rhino_add_spotlight

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Add a spotlight' and lists parameters; it does not mention coordinate system, document requirements, units or semantics of radius, whether a document must be open, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 brief, front-loaded with the core action, and uses a clean argument list. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no fluff or repetition of the schema's default values.

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 what the tool does and what each parameter means, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks usage guidance and clear specification of radius semantics and coordinate conventions, leaving an agent to make assumptions about how to properly configure the spotlight.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by assigning meaning to every parameter: x/y/z as position, target_x/y/z as the aim point, and radius as the cone radius. This is valuable semantic information the schema alone lacks, though 'cone radius' remains somewhat ambiguous regarding units or angle.

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 specific action and resource: 'Add a spotlight to the scene.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling light tools like rhino_add_point_light and rhino_add_directional_light. The verb-resource pair is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool name.

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 about when to use a spotlight versus point or directional lights, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone. The description provides no context for selecting this tool over its nearby siblings.

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