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. While 'Remove all animation data' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't disclose whether this action is reversible, what permissions are needed, or how it affects linked data. It mentions a return type ('Confirmation dict') but gives no details on content or error conditions.

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. However, the 'Confirmation dict.' return statement is vague and could be more informative without adding bulk. Overall, it's well-organized and avoids unnecessary verbosity.

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 destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), no annotations, and an output schema (though unspecified), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks details on behavior, error handling, and integration with sibling tools. It meets the bare minimum for a single-parameter mutation tool.

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 adds basic semantics for the single parameter ('object_name: Name of the object.'). However, it doesn't clarify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, existence requirements) or provide examples. With only one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the minimal explanation reduces it to 3.

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 ('Remove all animation data') and target resource ('from an object'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'delete_keyframe' or 'create_animation_path'. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being tautological.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the object must exist or have animation data), nor does it differentiate from related tools like 'delete_keyframe' or 'set_frame_range'. The description lacks contextual usage instructions.

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