blender_add_light

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON with the light object name and properties') and the supported light types, which adds context. However, it does not mention side effects like whether existing lights are replaced, or any requirements (e.g., a scene must be open). This is adequate but not rich.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, arguments, returns, and an example. It is reasonably concise, with every section adding value. It loses one point for being slightly verbose with the formatted 'Args:' and 'Returns:' labels, but overall it is efficient and front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple light types, many optional parameters) and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is largely complete. It includes supported types, an example, and return behavior. However, it omits constraints like which parameters apply to which light types (relying on the schema), and it doesn't mention potential errors. Still, for an 'add' operation with good schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names and mentions type-specific settings but does not explain the meaning of most parameters (e.g., energy units, color format) beyond the example. The example provides some context, but the 'etc.' leaves many parameters unspecified. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema-level descriptions in the text.

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 action clearly: 'Add a light source to the scene.' It also enumerates supported light types (POINT, SUN, SPOT, AREA), which distinguishes it from siblings like blender_create_primitive or blender_set_camera. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool: whenever a light source is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives such as blender_execute_python (which could also add lights) or mention any exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls at the 'implied usage' level.

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