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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('bake a physics simulation') but doesn't explain what 'bake' entails (e.g., whether it's a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like performance impacts). This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear 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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by clear sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 physics simulation operation with 2 parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like side effects or prerequisites, which are important for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'object_name' as the object with physics, and 'physics_type' as optional to bake specific physics or all if empty. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail what physics types are available.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('bake') and resource ('physics simulation for an object'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_physics_property' or 'add_rigid_body', which might handle related physics 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the object must have physics already applied) or compare it to sibling tools like 'set_physics_property' for modifying physics settings, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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