blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool creates something, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects, error handling, or performance aspects. The return format is mentioned, but no further context like idempotency or state changes is given.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though the formatting as a code block might be slightly verbose; every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return values adequately, but for a creation tool with potential side effects, it lacks context on prerequisites, errors, or integration with other tools, leaving gaps in usability.

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 compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'type' with allowed values (BEZIER, NURBS, PATH), 'name' as optional, and 'location' as a 3D coordinate. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail defaults or constraints like array length for location.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('a new curve object'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_object' by specifying curve creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other curve-related tools like 'add_curve_point' or 'convert_curve_to_mesh'.

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, such as needing an active scene or 3D context, or when to choose this over other creation tools like 'create_object' for general objects or 'add_curve_point' for modifying existing curves.

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