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. It states this is a creation operation (implying mutation), mentions default values, and describes the return format. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether the camera becomes active, what happens if a camera with the same name exists, permission requirements, 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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses bullet-like formatting for parameters. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' headers could be more concise. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 creation tool with no annotations but with output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description provides good coverage. It explains the purpose, documents all parameters thoroughly, and describes the return format. The main gaps are lack of behavioral context (error conditions, side effects) and usage guidelines relative to sibling tools.

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 (schema has titles but no descriptions), the description provides excellent parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, format, and default values: name (string, default 'Camera'), location (XYZ array, default [0,0,0]), rotation (Euler radians array, default [0,0,0]), and lens (focal length in mm, default 50). 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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new camera in the scene.' It specifies the verb ('Create') and resource ('camera'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_light' or 'create_object' beyond the resource type. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling comparison 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. While sibling tools include 'set_camera_property' and 'point_camera_at', the description doesn't mention these or explain when creation vs. modification is appropriate. It also doesn't specify prerequisites like needing an active scene.

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