blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies pose (implying mutation) and returns confirmation, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, how it interacts with animation keyframes, or potential side effects on rigging or constraints. This is inadequate 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by organized 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse while remaining comprehensive for the tool's functionality.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it misses behavioral details like error conditions, dependencies, or effects on the armature system, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's correct usage in a broader context.

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 explicitly lists and briefly explains all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, clarifying their purposes (e.g., 'Optional XYZ location offset', 'Optional XYZ Euler rotation in radians'). With 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well by providing meaningful semantics beyond just parameter names, though it doesn't specify array sizes or units beyond 'radians' for rotation.

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 the pose of a bone in an armature'), identifies the resource ('bone in an armature'), and distinguishes it from similar tools like 'set_bone_property' or 'set_location' by focusing specifically on pose transformation with location, rotation, and scale parameters.

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 like 'set_location', 'set_rotation', or 'set_scale' individually, nor does it mention prerequisites such as requiring an existing armature or bone. It simply describes what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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