Create and configure procedural or physical sky for your game scene, adjusting sky colors, sun energy, and ground color.
Create/configure Sky with procedural/physical sky
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | Action: create or configure | |
| skyType | No | Type: procedural or physical | |
| topColor | No | Sky top color {r,g,b} | |
| sunEnergy | No | Sun energy/brightness | |
| bottomColor | No | Horizon bottom color {r,g,b} | |
| groundColor | No | Ground color {r,g,b} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates that the tool can create or configure a sky. It does not mention whether this replaces an existing sky, mutates scene state, requires a certain environment node, or returns anything. The behavioral picture is largely opaque.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and core choice. It is efficient, though slightly awkward phrasing ('with procedural/physical sky') leaves room for clarity.
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 six parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not clarify how skyType, colors, and sunEnergy interact, whether action=create differs semantically from action=configure beyond the schema text, or how this relates to the broader environment tools available.
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 each parameter. The description adds little beyond restating 'create or configure' and 'procedural or physical,' but it does align with the action and skyType meaning. Nested color objects are not further clarified, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema covers the parameter descriptions.
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 clear verb-resource pairing (create/configure Sky) and names the two sky types (procedural/physical), giving the tool a distinct identity. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like game_environment, but the sky-specific focus is reasonably clear.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_environment, game_light_3d, or game_world_settings. The description only implies that the tool is for sky creation/configuration without explaining context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.