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. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete') and a key behavioral constraint (cannot delete last scene), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions beyond the stated constraint.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and front-loaded the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' line is somewhat generic ('Confirmation dict.') and could be slightly more informative.

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 tool with 1 parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter meaning, and a key constraint. The output schema handles return values, so the description doesn't need to detail them. However, without annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like error handling or permissions.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining the 'name' parameter meaningfully: 'Name of the scene to delete' and adds the critical constraint 'Cannot delete the last remaining scene'. This provides essential context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a scene by name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_scene' or 'get_scene_info'. It's 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?

The description provides clear context for usage with the constraint 'Cannot delete the last remaining scene', which helps the agent understand when not to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or compare with sibling deletion tools like 'delete_collection' or 'delete_object'.

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