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. It mentions 'separate' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose if this is destructive (e.g., alters original mesh), requires specific modes or selections, has side effects, or what 'confirmation dict' entails. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal fluff, though the Args section could be more integrated into the flow. Every sentence adds value, but the structure is slightly fragmented.

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, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basics of purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and deeper parameter explanations. The output schema handles return values, so that gap is mitigated.

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 meaning by explaining 'object_name' as 'Name of the mesh object' and 'type' as 'Separation method' with enum values, which clarifies beyond the schema's bare titles. However, it doesn't detail what each method does (e.g., SELECTED vs MATERIAL vs LOOSE), leaving 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 ('separate') and resource ('a mesh'), specifying it separates into parts. It distinguishes from siblings like 'join_objects' or 'merge_vertices' by focusing on division rather than combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'subdivide_mesh' or 'remesh' which also modify mesh structure, leaving some ambiguity.

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., needing a mesh object selected), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'subdivide_mesh' or 'remesh'. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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