blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'Sets' visibility (implying mutation) and mentions a return ('Confirmation dict'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the confirmation dict contains. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description does well by documenting all parameters and stating a return type. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations, it could better explain behavioral aspects like idempotency or error handling to be fully complete.

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 explaining all 4 parameters in the Args section: 'name' (object name), 'visible' (visibility toggle), 'viewport' and 'render' (application scopes with defaults). It adds meaning beyond schema titles, though it could elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 object visibility') and the target ('in viewport and/or render'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'set_collection_visibility' or 'set_viewport_shading'. It uses a precise verb ('Set') and resource ('object visibility') with scope clarification.

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 controlling object visibility in viewport/render contexts, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_collection_visibility' or 'focus_on_object'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative guidance are provided.

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