createLight

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write operation and lists controllable features, but says nothing about side effects, defaults, permission requirements, or what happens when parameters are omitted. What it does say largely restates the schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action and its major controls with no filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical enum list slightly duplicates the schema's lightType 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?

For a 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: the schema covers defaults and units, yet the description omits behavioral context such as required scoping (compName) and effects of shadow/angle settings.

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%, and all 12 parameters already document their units and defaults, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond naming a subset of the fields (intensity, color, shadows, 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 names a specific verb ("Create") and resource ("3D light layer") and enumerates the supported variants (Point, Spot, Parallel, Ambient), which are the same values as the lightType enum. It is clearly distinct from siblings like createCamera, create3DLayer, or createSolidLayer, though it does not explicitly say so.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite information (for example, whether a composition name must be supplied or which light type suits which situation). The agent must infer everything from the schema.

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