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 for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what 'armature' means in this context. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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 by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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 has an output schema (returns a dict with name and location), the description doesn't need to explain return values, and it covers the parameters well. However, as a creation tool with no annotations, it lacks context on prerequisites, errors, or what an 'armature' is, which could be important for correct usage in this domain (likely 3D modeling).

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?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'name' is for the armature and defaults to 'Armature', and 'location' is an XYZ position defaulting to origin, clarifying the purpose and defaults that the schema alone doesn't provide. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Create a new armature object') and identifies the resource ('armature object'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar creation tools like 'create_object' or 'create_curve' among the siblings, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With many sibling tools for creating different types of objects (e.g., 'create_object', 'create_curve', 'create_camera'), there's no indication of what makes an armature distinct or when it's the appropriate choice, leaving the agent to guess based on context.

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