light_create_omni

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

The annotations mark the operation as non-read-only and destructive, and the description's 'Create' action aligns with that. It does not add details about side effects, such as whether an existing light is overwritten or how missing optional parameters behave, but there is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and lists the key options efficiently. The bilingual duplication is redundant but acceptable and does not harm clarity.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple creation tool, especially with full schema coverage. It lacks explicit information about what happens when optional parameters like position or name are omitted, and it provides no return-value details, though no output schema exists.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds only that color, multiplier, shadows, and decay are optional, which is minimal extra meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify default behavior for omitted parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Omni light') and clearly describes the operation: creating a point light at a given position with optional color, multiplier, shadows, and decay. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like light_create_spot, light_create_directional, and light_create_area.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when an Omni/point light is needed. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions under which another light-creation tool should be chosen instead.

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