light_create_area

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true; the description adds behavior beyond that by specifying the default mental ray mr_Area_Omni implementation and noting VRay/Corona compatibility if installed. It does not detail creation side effects, but the destructive annotation already covers that dimension.

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?

Two short bilingual sentences with the creation verb and object front-loaded. The compatibility note and use-case explanation are both useful and do not repeat schema content.

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 creation tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: default renderer-specific type and suitability for interior lighting. It does not mention default values for omitted parameters, but the schema and required=0 signal make this acceptable.

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%, so the baseline is 3; parameter meanings (name, color, position, multiplier) are fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond restating that this is an area light.

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?

States a specific verb ('create') and object type ('area light'), plus names the concrete default implementation (mr_Area_Omni). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling light creation tools like light_create_omni, light_create_spot, and light_create_directional via the soft-shadow/interior-lighting context.

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?

Gives clear selection context: area lights produce soft shadows and are well suited to interior lighting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the implied use case is strong enough for an agent to choose this over omni/spot/directional lights.

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