game_light_3d

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 mentions create/configure but does not explain whether configure requires an existing node, whether create also updates, what happens on overwrites, or what side effects occur. This is under-disclosed for a mutating 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 efficient sentence with the key verb and resource front-loaded. It has no wasted words, though it is so brief that it leaves important behavioral and contextual details to the schema.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required parameter combinations, the difference between create and configure flows, or what the tool returns. An agent would need to infer too much 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameter meanings. The description adds a light organizational context but does not clarify parameter interactions, such as which fields apply to create versus configure. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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?

Description states a specific verb pair ('Create/configure') with a clear resource ('3D lights') and enumerates the supported subtypes (directional/omni/spot). The '3D' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling game_light_2d, so an agent can identify its 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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as game_light_2d, game_environment, or game_gi, and provides no exclusions or conditions. Usage context is only implied by the tool's name and stated purpose.

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