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 lacks behavioral details. It states the tool modifies properties ('Set'), implying mutation, but doesn't disclose permission requirements, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The mention of 'Confirmation dict' as a return is minimal behavioral insight.

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 sections for args and returns. It's efficient with minimal fluff, though the property list is lengthy but necessary for clarity.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context for a mutation tool. The output schema reduces need for return details, but more on usage and effects would improve completeness.

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., 'energy', 'color') and noting that the value type depends on the property. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could detail value formats or constraints more explicitly.

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 light object'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_bone_property' or 'set_camera_property' beyond specifying the target object type, which is a minor gap.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing light object), exclusions, or related tools like 'create_light' or 'list_lights', leaving usage context unclear.

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