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 the tool creates a new scene and returns a confirmation dict, but lacks critical behavioral details: permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing scenes, if it becomes the active scene, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description covers basics but lacks depth for a mutation tool. It explains the parameter and return value, but without annotations, it misses behavioral context like side effects or error handling. The output schema reduces burden, but more completeness is needed for safe use.

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 by explaining the single parameter ('name: Name for the new scene'). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the parameter's role. With only one parameter, the description adequately covers it, though it doesn't specify constraints like length or uniqueness.

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 scene') and specifies the resource ('scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_scene' and 'get_scene_info' by focusing on creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools (e.g., 'create_object', 'create_camera'), 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether a scene must be open), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'create_collection' or 'create_object'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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