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 mentions the tool 'makes current transforms the new basis' which hints at mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's destructive or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal beyond the basic action.

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 brief purpose statement followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core action. No redundant or verbose language.

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 (4 parameters, 1 required) and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, parameters, and return value adequately. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It could improve by adding more behavioral context or usage examples.

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 a clear 'Args' section explaining each parameter's purpose and defaults, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail constraints or examples for the 'name' parameter.

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 ('Apply (freeze) transforms') and the resource ('an object'), specifying that it makes current transforms the new basis. It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_location' or 'set_rotation' by focusing on freezing transforms rather than setting them, though it doesn't explicitly compare to all siblings.

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 you want to freeze transforms as a new basis, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'set_origin' or other transform-related tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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