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 3D text object and returns a dict with the object name, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies the scene), error handling, or rate limits. For a creation 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 with a clear opening sentence and organized parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized, though the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more seamlessly. 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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, creation operation), no annotations, and an output schema present (returns a dict), the description is fairly complete. It covers parameters well and hints at the Blender context, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or integration with 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all 5 parameters (text, name, location, size, font), explaining their purposes, defaults, and optionality (e.g., 'Uses default Blender font if empty'), effectively documenting what the schema lacks.

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 3D text object') and resource ('text object'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'create_curve' by specifying the type of object being created. The verb 'Create' 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. While the description implies it's for creating text objects in a 3D context (likely Blender), it doesn't specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or mention sibling tools like 'create_object' for general object creation.

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