light_create

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds important behavior: target-type lights are created with an offset target, and renderer-specific lights require the renderer installed. This explains observable side effects and constraints that annotations do not cover.

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 definition is compact, with the main action stated first and supported types listed concisely. The bilingual text lengthens it but does not add unnecessary complexity; every sentence contributes either type coverage or parameter context.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description does not state what the tool returns or what constitutes success. More importantly, it omits several enum values (e.g., 'sun', 'free_directional', 'area') and does not explain behavior when a renderer is missing. For a 12-parameter tool without output schema, these gaps make the description incomplete.

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 all parameters are already described in the schema. The description merely restates 'shared params' and adds no syntax, defaults, or relationships beyond what the schema provides; hence the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Generic light creation' and lists the supported light types (omni, spot, directional, area, etc.), making it clear that this tool creates lights. It also contrasts with specialized sibling tools like light_create_omni by being generic, so an agent can distinguish it from the exact type-specific 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?

The description implies usage through the word 'generic' and by covering multiple light types, but it never explicitly contrasts with sibling tools such as light_create_omni or light_create_spot. It only notes renderer requirements, not when to prefer specific tools over this one.

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