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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and non-destructive annotations, the description explicitly says it changes nothing and that choosing which copy stays is the user's decision. It also discloses the exact deletion path, including the required bundle confirm token, which gives the agent critical 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 front-loaded with the core question and is generally tight. The quoted answer template is slightly cryptic but earns its place by showing what the tool returns.

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 an output schema exists, return values need not be fully explained, and the annotations cover the safety profile. The description still adds the key next-step workflow and non-mutation guarantee, leaving nothing important missing for correct invocation.

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 100%, so both projectId and blenderModelId are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema for these parameters, 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 states a specific verb and resource: it determines whether a project holds the same Blender model imported more than once. The 'two whole imports side by side' phrasing distinguishes duplicate detection from nearby siblings such as r3_blender_list or r3_blender_import.

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 makes clear this is a pre-deletion duplicate check and names the follow-up deletion tool with its required arguments. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus listing tools like r3_blender_list, but the context is sufficiently unambiguous for selection.

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