blender_add_light

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. However, it adds no new behavioral context, such as side effects (e.g., creating a new object in the scene, affecting the active collection) or limitations. The description focuses on parameter values, not on what happens when the tool executes, leaving behavioral expectations to inference.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action 'Add a light' and immediately followed by practical parameter guidance. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy. This is exemplary conciseness for a tool with many parameters.

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 11 parameters and only 27% schema coverage, the description is far from complete. It does not explain how to specify position, orientation, or collection membership, nor does it mention the effect of the operation on the scene. There is no output schema to clarify return values, so the description bears the full burden of context, which it fails to meet.

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?

With schema description coverage at only 27%, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does provide meaningful semantics for 'energy' (typical values per type) and 'size' (softens shadows on AREA/POINT), which go beyond the schema's bare field names. However, it leaves most other parameters (name, location, rotation, collection, etc.) without any explanation, so the compensation is partial and not comprehensive.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'light', which unambiguously identifies the tool's function. It distinguishes from siblings like blender_add_camera by naming the resource, though it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. The typical energy ranges add useful specificity without diluting the core purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It offers parameter tuning suggestions (energy values, size effect) but does not state the intended scenario, prerequisites, or cases where a different tool like blender_set_context or blender_add_camera would be more appropriate. This is a clear gap for a tool with many siblings.

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