scaffold_aim_offset_blend_space

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a non-obvious trap: the yaw/pitch and grid arguments are only echoed back and never written to the asset. It also documents the re-save semantics (already_existed=true) and that a failed save still reports success with saved=false, which the annotations alone 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?

The creation behavior is front-loaded in one dense sentence, the gotcha follows, and a compact Returns block closes it out. Every clause carries information an agent needs, with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return fields and the optional note. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and the in-description warning about unwritten arguments, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the repeated 'not written to the asset' note. The description's consolidated warning reinforces the most important quirk but adds no new per-parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 fits.

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 (Create), a specific resource (UAimOffsetBlendSpace), and the exact destination (package_path/asset_name), plus the alternate re-save path. This is precise enough to separate it from generic create_blend_space and scaffold_blend_space_2d, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It routes the agent to set_blendspace_properties for axis ranges and explains the create-or-reuse condition, which is genuine usage guidance. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of create_blend_space when...' statement, so it is clear context rather than a full when/when-not rule set.

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