env_set_exposure

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that 'none' removes the exposure control and 'physical' is the default. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with that. It does not mention side effects on rendering, but the added specificity justifies a score above the annotation-only baseline.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action and options, then adds clarifying notes. It is bilingual but not verbose, and every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 setter with two parameters, the description provides all necessary information: the enum values, the optional EV, and special behaviors. No output schema is present, but that is acceptable for a setter. The destructive nature is covered by annotations, and the description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the special cases of the 'type' parameter ('none' removes, 'physical' is default), which goes beyond the enum names. The exposureValue parameter is not elaborated beyond the schema, but the added type semantics warrant a 4.

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 clearly states the tool sets the exposure control, enumerating the allowed types and the optional EV value, and adds clarifying notes about 'none' and 'physical'. It is specific about the verb and resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling env_set_* tools.

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 like env_set_background_color or env_set_ambient. The description explains what the tool does but not the context in which it should be invoked, such as prerequisites or typical use cases.

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