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 states the tool deletes a light object but doesn't mention whether this action is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects linked scenes or collections, or what happens to materials/animations associated with the light. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 separate Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return. There's no redundant or unnecessary information.

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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the parameter and mentions a return type ('Confirmation dict'), but doesn't detail what that confirmation contains or address safety considerations. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description should do more to compensate for the lack of annotations.

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?

The description explicitly documents the single parameter ('name: Name of the light object to delete'), which is valuable since the schema has 0% description coverage. This adds clear semantic meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., case sensitivity, exact match requirements) or provide examples.

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 ('Delete') and target ('a light object from the scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_object' or 'delete_collection', which would require more specific context about what distinguishes light deletion from general object deletion.

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 'delete_object' (which might handle lights as well) or 'list_lights' (to identify lights before deletion). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or when this specific tool is appropriate versus more general deletion tools.

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