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 key behavioral traits: the tool performs an import operation (implying mutation/write), supports specific formats, auto-detects from extensions, and returns a dictionary. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the import is destructive to existing data, or any rate limits/constraints.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported formats, auto-detection note, and clear parameter/return sections. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering parameters, behavior, and return value. The only minor gap is lack of explicit warnings about potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing data) or error conditions, which would elevate it to a 5.

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 adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains both parameters thoroughly: 'filepath' must be an absolute path and exist, 'type' is optional with enumerated values and auto-detection behavior. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Import a 3D file into Blender') and resource ('3D file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'open_file' (which likely opens Blender files) and 'export_file' (the opposite operation). The verb 'import' is precise and the target application is explicitly named.

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 about when to use this tool (for importing 3D files in various formats) and mentions auto-detection behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'open_file' for .blend files), though the format list makes its scope evident.

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