light_create_sun

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

The description adds useful non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: Daylight class availability is a prerequisite, and azimuth/altitude are set best-effort because property names vary across releases. Annotations already flag this as non-read-only and potentially destructive, and the description does not contradict 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 compact and front-loaded with purpose, with caveats placed in bold after the main statement. The bilingual duplication is somewhat redundant but acceptable for the intended audience, and there is no filler.

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 creation tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering safety, the description covers the essential call context: what is created, the positioning inputs, the availability constraint, and the version-dependent behavior. It does not describe return values or default behavior when no parameters are supplied, but those gaps are minor given the annotations and schema.

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 the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description reinforces azimuth/altitude but adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so a 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a Daylight system (sun + sky + compass)' and adds the positioning method via azimuth/altitude. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling light creation tools like light_create_omni or light_create_directional.

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 the tool is for creating a full daylight rig rather than a single light, and it warns that the Daylight class must be available. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when to prefer another tool such as light_create_directional or light_set_sun.

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