blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Set'), but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid bones/properties, or rate limits. The return format is mentioned but not elaborated.

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?

Efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool's core function, and subsequent lines document parameters and output without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description does well: it explains all parameters and mentions the return format. However, it lacks behavioral context like error conditions or side effects, which is important for a write operation.

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 provides clear semantics for all 4 parameters: identifies 'armature_name' and 'bone_name' as object identifiers, lists valid values for 'property' (e.g., roll, length), and explains 'value' as the target setting. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Set a property'), target resource ('on a bone in an armature'), and scope (specific properties). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_pose' or 'set_brush_property' by focusing on bone properties rather than pose data or brush settings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_pose' for pose-related bone properties or 'parent_mesh_to_armature' for bone relationships. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., requires an existing armature and bone) or exclusions (e.g., not for animation keyframes).

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