blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return value ('Confirmation dict with current mode'), which adds useful behavioral context beyond the basic action. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error conditions, or permissions needed for this mode transition.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core action and the second providing return value details. Every sentence earns its place without any wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, output schema provided), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and return value, but could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., what happens if not in sculpt mode). The output schema reduces the need for detailed return explanations.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for any gaps.

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 ('Exit sculpt mode') and the resulting state ('return to object mode'), using precise verbs and distinguishing it from its sibling 'enter_sculpt_mode'. It directly addresses what the tool does without being tautological.

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 implies usage context by referencing 'sculpt mode' and 'object mode', suggesting it should be used when transitioning between these modes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., other mode-switching tools) or any prerequisites, such as requiring an active sculpt session.

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