blender_lighting

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

With annotations all false (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states operations such as 'Generate directional sunlight', 'Create point light', and 'Modify properties of existing lights', clearly indicating mutating effects. It also notes operation-specific parameters like spot_size and shadow_soft_size, adding context beyond the annotations.

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 starts with a 'PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE' paragraph that explains tool design philosophy rather than usage. While the subsequent operation breakdown is well-structured with bullet points, the meta rationale adds length without helping an agent select or invoke the tool, making it less concise than optimal.

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 tool with 7 operations and 11 parameters, the description covers all operations and indicates which parameters apply to each. It implicitly communicates that it operates within Blender, consistent with sibling tools. Given the output schema exists, the lack of return-value details is acceptable. It does not mention prerequisites like an active Blender session, but this appears to be common across the sibling set.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters, including usage notes like 'Only used for: create_area'. The description groups parameters by operation (create_* vs setup_* vs adjust_light), which reinforces the mapping but does not add materially new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Professional lighting system for Blender' and enumerates seven distinct lighting operations (create_sun, create_point, create_spot, create_area, setup_three_point, setup_hdri, adjust_light). This separates it from sibling tools like blender_camera or blender_render by focusing specifically on lighting.

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 this is the consolidated tool for all lighting tasks, explaining that it consolidates 7 operations to prevent tool explosion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or list exclusions, leaving usage guidance 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.