blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Bevel all edges' implies a mesh modification operation, it doesn't specify whether this is destructive/permanent, requires specific object types, has side effects on materials or modifiers, or provides error handling. The mention of 'Confirmation dict' in Returns is minimal behavioral context.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the operation, and the parameter explanations are necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. No redundant or verbose content is present.

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?

For a mesh modification tool with no annotations, the description covers the core operation and parameters adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, performance implications, or interaction with other tools. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more context on the tool's effect would be beneficial.

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 adds significant value by explaining all three parameters: 'object_name' identifies the target mesh, 'width' controls bevel size, and 'segments' (with range 1-100) determines smoothness. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail units for 'width' or default values.

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 specific action ('Bevel all edges') and target resource ('of a mesh'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'subdivide_mesh' or 'loop_cut' that perform different mesh operations. It uses precise terminology appropriate for 3D modeling contexts.

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 like 'subdivide_mesh' or 'loop_cut', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing mesh object). It only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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