plan_blender_workflow

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Without touching Blender' usefully discloses that this is a non-mutating planning tool, but nothing is said about whether it is read-only, side-effect free, deterministic, or how expensive/what shape its output is.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. The problem is brevity by under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — the sentence is short because it omits needed detail, not because it is dense.

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 five undocumented enum parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description would need to do substantial explanatory work and does not. An agent lacks enough information to call this correctly or predict what it returns.

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 0% across five parameters with cryptic names (known, needs, delegated, continuation), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. An agent cannot tell what 'delegated' versus 'known' means or how 'continuation' changes behavior from either structured or natural-language text.

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?

The verbs 'Recommend' plus the objects 'guides and unanswered design topics' give a rough sense of purpose, and 'without touching Blender' signals a planning-only tool. But 'minimal on-demand guides' is opaque jargon and the description never clarifies what a returned 'recommendation' actually is, nor how it differs from siblings like get_blender_skill or get_blender_reference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no sibling tool is named as an alternative. The phrase 'without touching Blender' implies this is a safe pre-flight planning call, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.

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