env_set_background_map

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as overwriting the existing background map, requiring an existing file, or what happens on invalid paths. It does not contradict the annotations, but it does not enrich them.

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 focused sentence in both Chinese and English, with no redundant explanation or filler. It front-loads the core action and stays appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool.

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 simple one-parameter setter, the description is mostly complete: the parameter is fully documented, annotations cover the destructive nature, and the purpose is clear. The main gap is the absence of any guidance about when to choose this tool over env_set_background_color or other environment-related tools.

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 coverage is 100% and the single optional path parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats the same information about creating a bitmap from path without adding extra meaning or constraints.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a specific resource ('scene background map'), and further clarifies the action as creating a bitmap from path for use as the environmentMap. It distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like env_set_background_color, env_set_ambient, and env_set_exposure.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it over alternatives or what conditions warrant calling it. There is no mention of env_set_background_color or other environment-related tools, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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