light_set_sun

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds a concrete behavior: it will return class_missing if no supported sun system exists, and it limits the repositioning to daylight/sunlight systems. It does not describe side effects or reversibility, but the annotation already flags mutation.

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 two short bilingual sentences with the action and condition front-loaded. Every clause contributes either the operation, the applicable system, or the failure behavior; no filler or schema duplication.

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 three-parameter mutation with a destructiveHint annotation, the description covers the precondition, the operation, and the notable error case. It does not specify the success return value or behavior when no parameters are supplied, but those are minor given the schema and no output 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?

Input schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline applies. The description reinforces that azimuth and altitude drive the repositioning, but it does not add detail beyond the schema, and the schema already documents the best-effort behavior of timeOfDay.

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 the exact action ('Reposition the sun via azimuth/altitude') and the target resource ('Daylight/Sunlight/IES_Sun system'). This separates it from sibling tools like light_create_sun and light_set, so an agent can identify it without opening schemas.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: use only when a Daylight/Sunlight/IES_Sun system exists, and it discloses the class_missing result when that precondition is absent. It does not name alternative tools for creating a sun or repositioning other light types, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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