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 this is a 'Set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, side effects, or rate limits. The return value is mentioned but lacks detail on error handling or confirmation format.

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, and sentences are direct without fluff. However, the 'Args' section could be more integrated into the flow, and some details are sparse, slightly reducing efficiency.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (implied by 'Returns'), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return value at a high level but lacks depth on behavior, error cases, and integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Physics type - RIGID_BODY, CLOTH, FLUID, or PARTICLE_SYSTEM'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't provide examples, constraints, or dependencies between parameters (e.g., how 'property' relates to 'physics_type'), leaving gaps.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'property on an existing physics simulation', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_bone_property', 'set_camera_property', or other property-setting tools, which would require a 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., that the object must have a physics simulation), exclusions, or related tools like 'add_rigid_body' or 'bake_physics', leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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