set_blendspace_interpolation

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

Far exceeds the annotation-provided safety profile. It discloses reflection-based internals (UBlendSpace::InterpolationParam[axis]), that only supplied fields change, that changes are wrapped in one undo transaction followed by a save, that an unknown smoothing type errors before any mutation, that a no-op returns changed=false/applied_count 0/saved=false with a note, and that a failed save returns success=false with saved=false and save_error. This is exactly the mutation context an agent needs.

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 verb/resource and the sibling differentiation before the behavioral detail. It is dense and long, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational content (undo, save, error, no-op), so little is wasted; the inline parameter enumeration is the one slightly redundant stretch.

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 carries the full burden and delivers: it lists the return structure (blend_space_path, is_1d, x_axis/y_axis objects, applied_count, notes, changed, saved, save_error) and covers error, no-op, and save-failure paths. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters including axis constraints and type-conditional usage. The description's field enumeration and '1D smooths axis 0 only; 2D smooths X and Y' restate schema-level facts rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 blend space's INPUT-SMOOTHING (interpolation) per axis') and enumerates the exact fields set (smoothing time, damping ratio, max speed, smoothing type). It explicitly names and contrasts the nearest sibling, set_blendspace_properties, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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 clearly distinguishes itself from set_blendspace_properties by naming what that tool covers (axis name/min/max/grid) versus what this one covers (interpolation params). It also clarifies 1D vs 2D applicability. There is no explicit 'when not to use' beyond the sibling contrast, but the context is clear.

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