blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'Remove,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects object state, or has side effects. The mention of a 'Confirmation dict' return hints at feedback but lacks detail on what confirmation entails.

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 structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though the parameter sections could be more informative to justify a perfect score.

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 destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action and parameters but lacks crucial context like error conditions, effects on the object, or usage examples, leaving gaps for an agent to infer behavior.

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 details. The description lists the parameters ('object_name' and 'modifier_name') but only repeats their names without explaining what constitutes valid values (e.g., format, constraints, or examples). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('Remove') and target ('a modifier from an object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_modifier' or 'set_modifier_property', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a score of 5.

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 'apply_modifier' or 'set_modifier_property' (which are present in the sibling list). There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or typical scenarios for removal versus other modifier operations.

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