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 cover critical aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error handling, or side effects on the curve object, leaving significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured parameter and return details. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, though the parameter explanations could be slightly more integrated for better flow.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context like safety or prerequisites. The output schema presence reduces need for return value details, but overall it's minimally viable with clear gaps.

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 well by listing specific property options (e.g., 'resolution_u', 'fill_mode') and noting that value type depends on property. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could detail value formats or constraints further.

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 curve object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_bone_property' or 'set_material_property' beyond the 'curve' qualifier, missing full sibling distinction.

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. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing curve), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'create_curve' or 'convert_curve_to_mesh', leaving usage ambiguous.

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