light_set

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

Annotations already convey that this is non-read-only and destructive, so the mutation aspect is covered. The description adds useful cross-version behavior: both multiplier and intensity are accepted and written to whichever field the target light actually has. Minor omissions, such as whether unspecified properties are left unchanged, exist, but core behavioral disclosure is solid.

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 front-loaded with a single verb and resource, followed by a compact property list and a short version caveat. The bilingual duplication is conventional and does not feel bloated. Every sentence contributes either scope, property coverage, or the cross-version clarification.

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 an 11-parameter setter with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it identifies the target, lists the mutable properties, and flags the version-sensitive parameter. It could add explicit partial-update semantics and behavior for nonexistent lights, but the schema plus annotations cover the main call constraints.

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 carries the load for formats and enums. The description adds meaningful value with the version-specific intensity/multiplier nuance: both aliases are accepted and written to the field the light actually uses. It also maps the listed attributes directly to parameters, although the schema already documents them.

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 operation, 'Modify a light', and enumerates the affected properties: name, color, multiplier/intensity, shadows, enabled, cone angle, penumbra, decay, and position. This clearly separates it from create/delete/get operations and from generic set_property_value. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, so it stops just short of full differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to choose it over alternatives such as light_set_sun, light_get, or light_create. An agent must infer from the name and property list that this is the general per-property light setter. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.

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