blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a mutation operation ('Set'), implying it modifies data, but doesn't mention permissions, side effects, error conditions, or whether changes are reversible. For a tool that alters object state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and appropriately concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter and return value sections. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Returns' section is somewhat redundant given the output schema exists.

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 that annotations are absent, schema description coverage is 0%, and this is a mutation tool, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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?

The description adds basic semantic context for both parameters ('name: Name of the object' and 'location: XYZ position as a 3-element list/tuple'), which is helpful since schema description coverage is 0%. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., coordinate system, units) or constraints beyond what's implied by the schema's array type, leaving room for improvement.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('position of an object'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'set_origin' or 'set_rotation', which also modify object properties, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that set various object properties (e.g., 'set_origin', 'set_rotation', 'set_scale'), there's no indication of when this specific location-setting tool is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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