edit_blendspace_sample

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

Annotations cover the safe/unsafe and idempotency profile, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the no-op case (value_edited=false, animation_replaced=false, saved=false, blend space neither modified nor saved) and the failure case (success false, saved=false, save_error). This is exactly the mutation-outcome detail an agent needs and that annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with verb+resource, then the parameter precondition, then no-op and failure semantics, then the return shape. Every sentence earns its place and the return enumeration compensates for the absent output schema.

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?

With four params, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description covers the required information an agent needs: parameter constraints, no-op detection, failure fields, and the return shape. Nothing material is 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it clarifies the independence of blend_value and animation_path and the at-least-one requirement, which the schema does not state. It still does not fully explain accepted value shapes, which the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource with scope ('Edit a blend sample (by index): blend value and/or animation'), and the 'by index' framing makes it clearly distinct from add_blendspace_sample/remove_blendspace_sample/get_blendspace_samples in practice. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Explains the precondition that at least one of blend_value/animation_path is required and why each is individually optional ('retime a sample without touching its animation, or swap the animation without moving it'), giving concrete use contexts. It stops short of pointing to an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use condition.

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