blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a deletion, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if it's reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., on objects using the material). The mention of a 'Confirmation dict' return hints at feedback but lacks detail on error handling or success criteria.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Confirmation dict.' is vague and could be more informative without sacrificing brevity. Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly polished.

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 (destructive operation with 1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers the return value), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should do more to explain behavioral aspects like error conditions or dependencies. It meets a baseline but lacks depth for safe agent invocation.

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 adds that 'material_name' is the 'Name of the material to delete', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's title. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., case sensitivity, existence validation) or examples, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a material by name'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_collection', 'delete_object', etc., by specifying the material resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'duplicate_material' or other material-related tools, keeping it from 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., material must exist), consequences (e.g., objects using the material might be affected), or related tools like 'list_materials' to check before deletion. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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