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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'set' a relationship, implying a mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether it's reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies object hierarchies.

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 brief sections for args and returns. Every sentence earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality, making it easy to parse without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameters but misses behavioral details like error handling or confirmation format. The presence of an output schema helps, but more context on usage and constraints is needed.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that 'child' and 'parent' are names of objects, clarifying their roles in the relationship. Since there are only 2 parameters and the schema lacks descriptions, this compensates well, though it doesn't detail format constraints like case sensitivity.

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 tool's purpose as 'Set parent-child relationship between two objects,' which is a specific verb (set) and resource (relationship between objects). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'parent_mesh_to_armature' by being generic rather than mesh/armature-specific, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling.

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 like 'parent_mesh_to_armature' or other parenting-related operations. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether objects must exist or be in a certain state, and doesn't mention any exclusions or common pitfalls.

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