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 states the action ('Add a modifier') but doesn't clarify if this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting performance), or details about the confirmation dict returned. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 with sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's concise but could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the parameter details into a brief summary. No wasted sentences.

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 covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., reversibility, error conditions) and relies on the output schema for return values, making it minimally complete.

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 semantics for all three parameters: 'object_name' (name of target object), 'modifier_type' (with an exhaustive enum list), and 'name' (optional custom name). This adds significant value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Add a modifier') and target ('to a mesh object'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_multires_modifier' or 'apply_modifier', which are related but distinct operations.

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 like 'add_multires_modifier' (a specific modifier type) or 'apply_modifier' (to finalize changes). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as requiring an existing mesh object or compatibility with modifier types.

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