blend-ai

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It states the action is a rename but doesn't disclose if it requires specific permissions, whether it's destructive (overwrites existing names), what happens on failure (e.g., duplicate names), or rate limits. The return format is mentioned but lacks detail on error cases.

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 well-structured with sections for Args and Returns, making it easy to parse. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The only minor inefficiency is the repetition of 'object' in parameter descriptions, but overall it's concise with no wasted sentences.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description adequately covers the basics (purpose, params, return type). However, as a mutation tool in a complex 3D modeling context (Blender), it lacks details on object types, error handling, and integration with siblings like 'list_objects'. The output schema existence reduces but doesn't eliminate the need for more context.

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 explicitly defines both parameters ('old_name' and 'new_name') with clear semantics, adding essential meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify constraints like name length, allowed characters, or uniqueness requirements, leaving some gaps.

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 ('Rename') and resource ('an object'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specify what type of object (e.g., mesh, light, camera) or distinguish from siblings like 'set_object_visibility' or 'set_location', but the core action is unambiguous.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., object must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot rename locked objects), or related tools like 'get_object_info' for verification. The description is purely functional without contextual advice.

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