blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions a 'Confirmation dict' return but doesn't detail mutation effects, error handling, or permissions required. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a brief purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. It's front-loaded and avoids unnecessary fluff, though the property list could be more concise (e.g., grouped or summarized).

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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates with parameter details but lacks behavioral context. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but for a mutation tool, more guidance on usage and effects 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by listing valid values for the 'property' parameter (e.g., lens, clip_start, sensor_width) and clarifying roles for 'name' and 'value'. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify value formats or constraints.

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 ('Set a property') and target ('on a camera'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_bone_property' or 'set_light_property' by specifying camera properties, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 like 'set_camera_from_view' or 'set_active_camera'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing camera object, or when not to use it.

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