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 states the tool inserts a keyframe and optionally sets a value, but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing keyframes, requires specific object states, or has side effects. The description is minimal and lacks crucial operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured breakdown of args and returns. Each sentence earns its place by clarifying parameters and output without redundancy, 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 complexity of a 4-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose and parameters well. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error conditions, dependencies), leaving some gaps for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all parameters: object_name identifies the target, data_path specifies the property with examples, frame indicates timing, and value is optional for pre-setting. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Insert a keyframe'), the target ('on an object property'), and the timing constraint ('at a specific frame'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_keyframe' and 'list_keyframes' by specifying insertion rather than deletion or listing.

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 for animation keyframing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'set_location' for direct property setting without keyframing). It provides some context via the data_path examples but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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