set_blend_profile_bone

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two things annotations cannot: the profile auto-creation side effect and the full return payload, including 'saved'/'updated' flags. What is missing is whether the mutation persists without saving or requires a subsequent save.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, with the return shape in a compact second statement. The inline return field list is somewhat heavy, but since no output schema exists it earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile for this mutation tool. It stops short of covering persistence requirements and the scope of the 'destructive' effect (e.g., what setting a scale overrides), which would fully close the gap.

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%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema (including the [0,1] clamp and the create_if_missing default). The description's only added parameter meaning is confirming the profile-creation behavior, which the schema already states. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set a bone's blend scale on a UBlendProfile') plus the notable side effect of creating the profile when absent. This is unambiguous against siblings like remove_blend_profile or set_blendspace_properties, though it never names a sibling to disambiguate.

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 explains mechanics but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., that the skeleton asset must exist or be loaded), and no exclusions or alternatives. The only conditional clause ('creates profile if missing') is a behavior statement, not usage guidance.

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