blender_set_world

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining effects. It adds useful context by stating that the world determines the background and ambient light, which helps the agent anticipate visual consequences. It does not disclose side effects like overriding existing world settings or interaction with render settings.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and enumerates options; the second adds essential conceptual context. Every word 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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is too high-level. It omits guidance on parameter combinations (e.g., sun_rotation/elevation only for sky), the meaning of strength, and how response_format affects output. An agent cannot reliably invoke all features based on this description alone.

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 only 38%, and the description does not compensate sufficiently. It lists the world modes but does not explain how parameters like strength, sun_rotation, or sun_elevation relate to those modes, nor the expected format for color or hdri. An agent would still be uncertain how to set a physical sky with sun controls or adjust intensity.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and a clear resource ('the world/environment'), then enumerates the supported modes: flat colour, studio grey, physical sky, HDRI, and vertical gradient. This fully distinguishes the tool from all siblings, none of which target the world/environment.

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?

Usage is implied through the description of what the world is and what it affects (background and ambient light), so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over related tools like blender_set_render_settings or blender_add_light, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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