blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the action ('Add a bone'), the automatic mode change ('Enters edit mode automatically'), and the return format ('Dict with the created bone's name, head, and tail positions'). However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., impact on existing bones, undoability) or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args and Returns. Each sentence is necessary, with no redundant information. The formatting (bullet-like sections) enhances readability without verbosity.

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?

Given the complexity of a 5-parameter tool with no annotations, the description does a good job covering purpose, parameters, and return values. The output schema exists, so the description appropriately explains the return format without redundancy. However, it could improve by mentioning dependencies (e.g., requires an existing armature) or error handling, which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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 must compensate. It provides clear semantic explanations for all 5 parameters: 'armature_name' (name of the armature object), 'bone_name' (name for the new bone), 'head' (XYZ position of the bone head), 'tail' (XYZ position of the bone tail), and 'parent_bone' (optional name of the parent bone). Default values are also noted. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on coordinate systems or units.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Add a bone to an armature') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the target resource (armature) and the creation of a bone, which is distinct from other tools like 'create_armature' or 'set_bone_property'. The phrase 'Enters edit mode automatically' adds unique behavioral context not implied by the tool name alone.

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 implies usage when needing to add a bone to an existing armature, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'create_armature' for making a new armature, or 'set_bone_property' for modifying existing bones). It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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