ae_verify_blender_job

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the tool is a gate, what it checks, and the consequence of failure. It does not describe the return format or whether it mutates anything, but 'verify' plus explicit gate semantics makes the main behavior transparent.

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 description is extremely tight: every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the gate purpose, states specific verification checks, and ends with a clear operational directive. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The tool is simple and the gate context is well covered, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should have explained how results are returned and what failure looks like operationally. The min_frames parameter is also unaddressed, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding how to invoke and interpret it.

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%, so the description needed to explain jobId and min_frames. It does not mention either parameter by name or meaning. 'Checks frame count' loosely relates to min_frames, but the threshold semantics and required jobId are left entirely to the agent to infer from the schema.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: it verifies a Blender job and explicitly names it a 'VERIFY GATE' for AE import. It lists concrete checks (frame count, frames differing, mesh exports), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling ae_import_3d_from_blender tool.

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?

Usage is explicitly prescribed: 'MUST pass before ae_import_3d_from_blender' and 'Do not claim 3D is done if this fails.' This gives the agent unambiguous when-to-use and when-not-to-claim-success guidance, and implicitly routes it to the import tool only after this gate passes.

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