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 deletes an object, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent, error handling (e.g., if object doesn't exist), or side effects. The mention of 'Confirmation dict' in Returns hints at feedback but lacks detail.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, though the Returns line is vague ('Confirmation dict').

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), no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks critical context like safety warnings or output details, which the output schema might address, leaving gaps.

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 meaning by explaining that 'name' is the 'Name of the object to delete', clarifying the parameter's role beyond the schema's basic type. With only one parameter, this is sufficient, though it could specify format (e.g., case-sensitive).

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 resource ('object from the scene'), specifying it's done 'by name'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_collection', 'delete_light', etc., which target different resource types, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific but could be more differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose other deletion tools like 'delete_collection'. Usage is implied by the name alone, lacking explicit context.

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