blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions a 'Confirmation dict' return but doesn't specify what that contains, error conditions, permissions needed, or side effects (e.g., whether this overwrites existing assignments). 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 brief and structured with sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. However, the 'Confirmation dict' is vague, and the purpose statement could be more informative 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 the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (though unspecified), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics but lacks depth on behavior, error handling, and integration with sibling tools, which could hinder effective use.

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%, but the description compensates by naming both parameters ('object_name' and 'material_name') and clarifying their roles ('target object' and 'material to assign'). However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving gaps in understanding.

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 ('Assign') and resources ('material to an object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_material' or 'set_material_property', which would require more specificity about what 'assign' means in this context.

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 'create_material', 'duplicate_material', or 'set_material_property'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether materials or objects must exist) or typical use cases.

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