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 tool adds a modifier but doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, if it requires specific permissions, what happens if applied incorrectly, or any side effects (e.g., performance impact from subdivision levels). The mention of 'sculpting detail' hints at context but lacks operational transparency.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary fluff. However, the 'Returns' section could be more informative (e.g., specifying what 'modifier info' includes) without adding bulk.

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 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, performance implications) and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify return values. For a tool that modifies 3D objects, more operational guidance would be helpful.

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 meaningful context for both parameters: 'object_name' is described as 'Name of the mesh object' (clarifying it must be a mesh), and 'levels' is described as 'Number of subdivision levels to add (1-6)' (adding range constraints not in the schema). 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 Multiresolution modifier') and purpose ('for sculpting detail'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_modifier' or 'remesh', which could also be used for sculpting-related 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. The description mentions 'sculpting detail' but doesn't clarify prerequisites (e.g., requires a mesh object, should be in sculpt mode) or compare it to similar tools like 'add_modifier', 'remesh', or 'subdivide_mesh' for achieving sculpting detail.

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