blender_setup_lighting

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states the mutation effect ('creates or configures') and that it operates 'in the scene', providing some transparency. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether existing lights with the same name are overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or any scene prerequisites. This is a moderate disclosure, lacking deeper behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the key adjustable properties. Every word contributes to the meaning; there is no redundancy or fluff. It is concise and well-structured.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate for an agent to understand the tool's function and parameters. It clearly states the purpose and the main fields (position, energy, color). The only missing piece is guidance on when to use it, which is a minor gap that does not prevent correct invocation once already selected.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds marginal value by clarifying 'energy wattage' as intensity and 'color tint' as RGB array, but these are already implied in the schema (e.g., 'Light intensity/wattage'). It does not introduce syntax or additional constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 verb 'creates or configures' and the resource '3D light source', listing the specific types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_setup_camera (camera) and blender_create_primitive (geometry). An agent can immediately understand its scope without ambiguity.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios like setting up scene lighting, comparing with other lighting tools, or conditions when this tool is preferred. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so an agent has to infer the appropriate context.

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