blender_validate_character

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Validate' implies a non-destructive check, but it does not explicitly state side effects, return format, or what happens on failure. It lists aspects checked but not behavioral guarantees.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then compactly lists the validation areas. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks information about return values, prerequisites, side effects, or edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 0%, and the description only loosely maps to parameters (triangles -> triangle_budget, materials -> material_budget, actions -> required_actions, rig -> armature_name). It does not explain defaults, constraints, or how the parameters are used, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 'validate' applied to a 'humanoid for game export', and enumerates the validation scope (rig, meshes, actions, bounds, triangles, materials). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create, normalize, and export.

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 phrase 'for game export' provides clear usage context, implying this is a pre-export validation step. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, lacking exclusions.

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