set_light_group

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the group is created when missing, that 'remove' deletes the group and pulls all members out (a destructive side effect an agent must not miss), and that Blender mangles dots into underscores. It does not say whether listed objects are moved out of their previous group or added alongside it, nor whether Cycles must be the active engine.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in one sentence, then a why, then structured Args/Returns. The Returns block partially duplicates the output schema, but it adds the 'name actually used' detail, so it mostly earns its place.

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 4-param mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description covers creation semantics, destructive removal, naming normalization, and engine context. Missing only the replace-vs-accumulate behavior of 'objects' and whether the tool requires the Cycles engine to be active.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does, defining all four params: group name, objects to move, world inclusion, and remove-as-delete. The note that the return value gives the name actually used (after dot-to-underscore conversion) is a genuinely useful parameter gotcha, though 'objects' never clarifies whether names, paths, or datablocks are expected.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the accepted operand types (lights, emissive objects, world), so the agent knows exactly what gets grouped. It does not differentiate itself from the nearest sibling in the list, set_light_linking, which is a real source of confusion in Blender since both involve per-light rendering behavior.

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 rationale sentence ('renders as its own pass (Cycles), so light balance can be changed in the compositor without re-rendering') implies when this is worth doing, and 'The group is created if needed' implies it is safe to call on a fresh scene. There is no explicit when-not or pointer to set_light_linking as the alternative, so usage is inferred rather than stated.

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