blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the action ('Remove') and return type ('Confirmation dict'), it omits critical details like whether this operation is destructive (likely yes, but not stated), permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., if the keyframe doesn't exist), or side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (a targeted mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is partially complete. It explains parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, errors) and usage guidance. The output schema reduces the need to describe returns, but overall completeness is moderate.

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 clearly explaining all three parameters: 'object_name' (name of the object), 'data_path' (property data path with examples like 'location'), and 'frame' (frame number). It adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on data path syntax or constraints.

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 ('Remove a keyframe'), target resource ('from an object property'), and scope ('at a specific frame'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'insert_keyframe' and 'clear_animation' by focusing on targeted removal rather than addition or bulk clearing.

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 like 'clear_animation' (which removes all keyframes) or 'list_keyframes' (for checking existing keyframes). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the object must exist or the keyframe must already be present.

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