Modify Blender lights by setting color, energy, size, shape, angle, radius, and shadow properties for precise scene lighting.
修改灯光参数。shape 用于面光 SQUARE/RECTANGLE/DISK/ELLIPSE；angle 用于太阳光。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| size | No | ||
| angle | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| shape | No | ||
| energy | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| spot_size | No | ||
| spot_blend | No | ||
| use_shadow | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that parameters are modified, without disclosing side effects, error behavior, overwriting semantics, or whether the tool can create lights if they don't exist.
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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The primary action is front-loaded, and the additional parameter notes are efficiently appended without unnecessary verbosity.
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 complexity (10 parameters), the description is incomplete. It explains only a fraction of the parameters, omits the meaning of the required 'name' field, and provides no output or fallback behavior details. The minimal guidance is insufficient for an agent to use all features correctly.
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?
The schema has zero description coverage for all 10 parameters, and the tool description only explains 'shape' and 'angle'. The remaining 8 parameters (size, color, energy, etc.) are left undefined, failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
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 tool's purpose as modifying light parameters ('修改灯光参数'), and provides specific guidance on the use of two parameters. It distinguishes from creation and query tools by implication, though not explicitly naming a sibling.
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?
Provides minor parameter-specific guidance (shape for area lights, angle for sun light) but gives no instruction on when to use this tool over alternatives such as create_light or get_light_info. No explicit conditions or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.