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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Extrude') but does not specify if this is a destructive operation, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details about the 'Confirmation dict' return. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by separate sections for arguments and returns. It is front-loaded and uses minimal sentences, though the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be integrated more seamlessly into the 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 the tool has an output schema (implied by 'Returns: Confirmation dict.'), the description does not need to detail return values. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it is adequate but leaves gaps in behavioral context and usage, making it minimally viable for a mesh modification tool.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that explains the parameters ('object_name' and 'offset'), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not provide examples, units for 'offset', or constraints, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 ('Extrude all faces of a mesh') and the method ('along their normals'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bevel_edges' or 'subdivide_mesh', which also modify mesh geometry, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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, such as other mesh modification tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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