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 mentions that 'linked' creates a duplicate that shares mesh data, which hints at behavioral implications (e.g., memory efficiency vs. independence), but doesn't disclose critical details like whether the operation requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to the original, what happens on failure, or typical response times. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly, though 'Returns' could be integrated more seamlessly. There's minimal fluff, but the formatting as separate sections slightly disrupts flow.

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 a mutation tool with 2 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and parameters but lacks depth on behavioral aspects and usage context. The output schema handles return values, so that burden is lifted, but more guidance on when and how to use the tool would improve completeness.

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 object to duplicate and 'linked' creates a duplicate sharing mesh data (with a default of False). However, it doesn't clarify parameter constraints (e.g., format of 'name', what 'True' implies beyond 'shares mesh data'), leaving some ambiguity. The value added is moderate but incomplete.

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 ('duplicate') and resource ('object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'copy_object' (if those existed), though in this context 'duplicate' is fairly distinct from the listed siblings which are mostly additive or transformative operations.

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., whether the object must exist), compare to similar operations like 'copy_object' or 'clone_object', or indicate when linked vs. unlinked duplication is appropriate. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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