blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool adds a particle system and returns a confirmation dict, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the object permanently), rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted sentences, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by integrating details into the main text.

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 that there is an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description does not need to detail return values. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 4 parameters, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling or dependencies. The parameter semantics are well-covered, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 semantics for all four parameters: 'object_name' as the mesh object, 'count' with a max value, 'lifetime' in frames, and 'emit_from' with enum values. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could include more details like units or 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 action ('Add a particle system') and target ('to an object'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_fluid_sim' or 'add_rigid_body', which also add simulation systems to objects, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mesh object) or exclusions (e.g., not applicable to non-mesh objects), nor does it reference sibling tools for context.

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