blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a write operation ('Create') but doesn't specify permissions, side effects, or error conditions. The return value is mentioned generically ('Confirmation dict'), but no details about format or potential failures are given. This is adequate for a basic creation tool but lacks depth.

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 well-organized parameter and return sections. Every sentence adds value—no redundancy or fluff. The use of bullet-like formatting in the Args/Returns sections enhances readability without 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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, 1 required), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It thoroughly documents parameters and mentions a return value. However, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., error handling, idempotency) and usage guidelines, which slightly reduces completeness for an agent.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It provides detailed semantics for all 5 parameters: enumerates valid 'type' values, explains optionality for 'name', specifies formats for 'location' and 'color' as arrays with defaults, and defines 'energy' meaning. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Create a new light') and resource ('in the scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_light_rig' (which creates multiple lights) or 'delete_light'. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 like 'create_light_rig' or 'set_light_property'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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