blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool 'Sets a property' (implying mutation), it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether changes are destructive to existing material data, error conditions, or rate limits. The return format is mentioned but not detailed.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by well-organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 no annotations, the description does well with parameter documentation and return mention. However, with an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but could better address behavioral aspects like error handling or prerequisites.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter semantics. It clearly explains each parameter's purpose, lists all valid 'property' enum values, and specifies value types (float vs list for colors), adding 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') on a specific resource ('material's Principled BSDF node'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_material_color or set_material_blend_mode. It precisely identifies the target component and operation.

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 implies usage for setting Principled BSDF properties, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_material_color or set_material_blend_mode. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., material must exist) or exclusions is provided.

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