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 implies a mutation ('Set') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or rate limits. The return format is mentioned ('Confirmation dict'), but lacks detail on what that contains or success/failure indicators.

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 clear sections for Args and Returns, using bullet-like formatting. It's concise with no redundant sentences, though the property examples could be more efficiently grouped.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return type at a high level, but lacks behavioral details (e.g., error handling, side effects) and deeper context needed for safe use without annotations.

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 all four parameters with brief explanations and examples for 'property' (e.g., 'levels', 'angle'). However, it doesn't specify data types for 'value' or constraints on 'object_name' and 'modifier_name', leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 modifier'), with examples of properties like 'levels', 'count', and 'offset'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_modifier' or 'remove_modifier' by focusing on property modification rather than creation or deletion, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar property-setting tools like 'set_bone_property' or 'set_geometry_node_input'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing modifier), exclusions, or compare to sibling tools like 'set_geometry_node_input' for similar property-setting tasks in different contexts.

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