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. While 'Add loop cuts' implies a mesh modification operation, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects: whether this is destructive/editable, what permissions are needed, whether it works in edit mode only, what happens if the object isn't a mesh, or any rate limits. The description mentions a return value ('Confirmation dict') but doesn't explain what that contains.

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 appropriately sized and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns). Each sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' section could be more informative. The formatting with bullet-like sections makes it easy to parse.

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 that this is a mesh modification tool with no annotations, 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), and an output schema exists (though unspecified), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks important context about when to use it, behavioral constraints, and what the output contains. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to document return values, but more operational context would be helpful.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description adds basic semantics for both parameters: 'object_name: Name of the mesh object' and 'cuts: Number of loop cuts. Range: 1-100.' This provides meaningful context beyond just parameter names, but doesn't fully compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation (e.g., doesn't explain object naming conventions, what happens with invalid names, or edge cases for cuts).

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 ('Add loop cuts') and target ('to a mesh object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling mesh modification tools like 'bevel_edges', 'subdivide_mesh', or 'remesh', which all modify mesh geometry in different ways.

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. With many sibling tools that modify meshes (bevel_edges, subdivide_mesh, remesh, extrude_faces, etc.), there's no indication of when loop cuts are appropriate versus other mesh editing operations, nor any prerequisites or constraints mentioned.

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