blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'unlinking them from their current collections', which implies mutation behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like permissions needed, whether the move is reversible, error handling for invalid inputs, or side effects on other objects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies object relationships.

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 action in the first sentence, followed by structured Arg and Return sections. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the return statement could be more specific (e.g., what keys the dict contains). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., error cases, side effects), parameter constraints, and return value structure. Given the complexity of moving objects between collections, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 adds basic semantics by explaining that 'object_names' is a list of objects to move and 'collection_name' is the destination, which clarifies beyond the schema's generic titles. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., object naming conventions) or constraints, leaving some ambiguity for the 2 parameters.

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 ('Move objects to a collection') and the effect ('unlinking them from their current collections'), which specifies the verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_collection' or 'delete_collection', which handle collections differently rather than moving objects between them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like existing collections or objects, or contrast with tools like 'parent_objects' or 'set_collection_visibility' that might affect object grouping. The description only states what it does, not when to apply it.

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