Modify Blender light attributes such as energy, color, shadow softness, spot size, blend, shadow usage, and area size by providing the light name, property, and value.
Set a light property: energy, color, shadow_soft_size, spot_size, spot_blend, use_shadow, size (area light).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| property | Yes |
| 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?
The idempotentHint annotation already covers repeat-safety. The description adds a list of valid properties and notes that size applies to area lights, which is useful domain context, but it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or whether existing values are overwritten.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the accepted properties compactly. There is no filler or repetition of schema fields.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple setter but leaves gaps: it does not map property names to their expected value types, mention that spot_size/spot_blend are spot-light-specific, or state what happens on invalid property names. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but value semantics remain incomplete.
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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It enumerates the valid property strings, which is essential since the schema defines property only as a plain string with no enum. However, it does not explain value formats or units for each property (e.g., color array layout, energy range), leaving the value parameter underspecified.
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 opens with the specific verb 'Set' and the resource 'light property', then enumerates the supported properties (energy, color, shadow_soft_size, spot_size, spot_blend, use_shadow, size). This makes the tool's scope clear and separates it from sibling setters like set_world_property or set_material_property, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over sibling setters, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only usage signal is the tool name and the phrase 'light property', which is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.