blender_set_point_light

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

Annotations only cover read-only, idempotence, and destructiveness; the description adds that the target must already exist and clarifies value semantics. However, it does not disclose failure behavior, whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, or any prerequisites beyond existence.

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 short sentences carry the action, target, and parameter semantics without filler. The key differentiator ('point-light object') is front-loaded.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers core call semantics and parameter meaning adequately. It is slightly thin on edge cases like missing targets or partial-update behavior, but those are minor gaps.

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 coverage is low (33%), but the description compensates by adding meaning: 'linear RGB [0,1]' and 'non-negative Blender watts' go beyond the bare schema constraints. target_name gets no extra detail, but its purpose is self-evident.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('point-light object'), and the exact fields affected ('color and/or energy'). This is clear and distinguishes it from create/delete siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with blender_set_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?

The description implies the tool is for modifying an existing point-light object, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative-routing. With blender_set_light as a sibling, an agent gets little help deciding between them.

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