blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an additive operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies the curve in-place, requires specific permissions, has side effects on other curve properties, or handles errors (e.g., invalid curve names). The return format is mentioned, but operational context is minimal.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured Arg/Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the action, and the subsequent lines efficiently clarify parameters and return value without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers parameters and return format, yet lacks behavioral context (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and usage guidance. For a tool that modifies existing data, more operational transparency would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'curve_name' identifies the target, 'location' specifies 3D coordinates, and 'handle_type' lists possible values (AUTO, VECTOR, ALIGNED, FREE). This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail coordinate systems or handle-type implications.

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 control point') and target resource ('to an existing curve'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_curve' (which creates new curves) or 'set_curve_property' (which modifies properties). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's clear this adds points to existing curves, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., curve must exist), constraints, or related tools for curve manipulation beyond the basic purpose statement.

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