blender_set_light

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

Annotations establish that this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds useful context by stating the light must already exist and that size is optional, which implies a missing target is likely an error. However, it does not say whether unspecified properties are preserved or how 'size' behaves on a Point light.

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, tightly worded sentence with no filler, front-loading the operation and target before listing the affected properties. 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?

For a simple update tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main target, updatable fields, and optionality. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps around usage versus the sibling tool and the exact behavioral effect of the update.

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 25%, so the description partially compensates by naming color, energy, and size, and by implying target_name via 'existing'. It does not add units for energy, clarify target_name semantics beyond existing, or add meaning beyond what the schema already gives for color.

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 states a clear action ('Update'), the target resource ('an existing Point or Area light'), and the affected properties (color, energy, optional area size). It is specific enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling blender_set_point_light.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_set_point_light. The description does not mention when the tool should be avoided, what it cannot do, or which light types are not supported.

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