blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this creates a new node (a write operation) and specifies the return format, but doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or how it interacts with existing node connections. The behavioral disclosure is basic but not misleading.

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?

Perfectly structured with a clear opening sentence stating the purpose, followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information. The description is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, write operation), no annotations, but with an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, documents all parameters semantically, and specifies the return format. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context about error handling or prerequisites.

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 three parameters: what 'modifier_name' is used for, examples of valid 'node_type' values, and the meaning of 'location' with its default. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all possible node types or location constraints.

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 node') and target resource ('to a geometry nodes modifier's node group'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_modifier' or 'create_geometry_nodes'. It precisely defines the tool's scope within Blender's geometry nodes system.

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 node to an existing geometry nodes modifier, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'connect_geometry_nodes' or 'set_geometry_node_input'. It provides context about the modifier system 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.