Creates a three-point lighting setup with key, fill, and rim lights, optionally aimed at a target object for balanced scene illumination.
Create a three-point lighting setup (key, fill, rim). Optionally aimed at a target object.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| key_energy | No | ||
| rim_energy | No | ||
| fill_energy | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions optional aiming and the creation of three lights, but does not state whether it replaces existing lights, how energies map to light intensities, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a creation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the optional targeting detail. There is no filler or redundancy.
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 moderate complexity (4 optional parameters with defaults), the description provides a conceptual overview but lacks parameter-level detail and side-effect disclosure. The presence of an output schema (not shown) may clarify return values, but the description alone is incomplete for an agent to call correctly without additional reasoning.
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 should explain the parameters. It references key, fill, rim and target, but does not explain the energy parameters (key_energy, rim_energy, fill_energy) or their roles. The schema only provides names and defaults, leaving the agent to guess the meaning of these numeric values.
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 'Create' and the resource 'three-point lighting setup' with components key, fill, rim. This distinguishes it from sibling create_light, which likely creates a single light, and other lighting tools. It also notes optional targeting of an object, making the purpose 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 it is a convenience tool for a classic three-point setup but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like create_light or set_light_property. No guidance on when to prefer this over creating lights individually is given, leaving the agent to infer from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.