blend-ai

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool joins objects and that the first name becomes active, but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is destructive (original objects may be deleted), permission requirements, side effects on materials/animations, or error handling for invalid inputs. The description provides basic operation but misses important behavioral 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first explains the operation, the second clarifies parameter semantics, and the third specifies return format. No wasted words.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description provides basic operation and parameter explanation. However, as a mutation tool (implied by 'join'), it should address more behavioral aspects like destructiveness and error conditions. The output schema exists (returns dict with joined object name), so describing return values isn't needed, but overall completeness is adequate with clear gaps.

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 explains that 'names' is a list of object names to join and clarifies that the first name becomes the active object, adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify minimum list length, naming conventions, or what happens with non-existent objects.

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 'join' and resource 'multiple mesh objects into one', specifying the exact operation. It distinguishes from siblings like 'merge_vertices' (vertex-level) and 'separate_mesh' (inverse operation), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 when combining mesh objects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'parent_objects' (hierarchical linking) or 'boolean_operation' (geometric combination). It mentions the first name becomes active, which is a useful constraint but not comprehensive usage guidance.

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