scaffold_blend_space_2d

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces idempotency while adding non-obvious behavior: axis metadata is intentionally left at engine defaults and axis fields are protected/visible only after the editor opens the asset. This goes beyond the annotations; it only omits save/permission details.

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 the core purpose in the first clause, then a caveat and a follow-up pointer, followed by a compact returns list. Every sentence earns its place; the returns block is slightly dense but useful given no output schema exists.

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 mutation/scaffold tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (asset_path, axis ranges, already_existed, saved) and discloses idempotency and the default-axis caveat, so an agent can call and interpret it correctly. Annotations cover the safety profile; the remaining gaps are minor.

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% across all 11 parameters, so the schema already documents each field and its defaults. The description restates the axis-metadata caveat but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 ('Create a UBlendSpace (2D) asset') and gives a concrete scenario ('Speed x Direction'), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as create_blend_space or scaffold_aim_offset_blend_space, leaving the '2D vs 1D vs aim-offset' boundary 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?

Provides clear context for when it applies (parameter-driven 2D blending) and names the follow-up tool (set_blendspace_properties) for setting the axis fields the scaffold leaves at defaults. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over the other blend-space creation siblings or its prerequisites beyond the required skeleton_path.

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