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. It implies a mutation operation ('Set'), which is clear, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. It mentions the return format ('Confirmation dict'), adding some behavioral context, but doesn't cover aspects like whether changes are reversible or if there are rate limits.

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 clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence defines the tool, the Args section explains parameters, and the Returns section specifies output. No wasted words.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameter semantics and the return format. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could improve by mentioning when to use specialized sibling tools or providing more behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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 provides essential semantics: 'property' must be one of the listed enums (e.g., frame_start, gravity), and 'value' type depends on the property. This clarifies beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail exact value formats or constraints for each property type.

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') and resource ('scene property'), listing concrete examples like frame_start, frame_end, fps, etc. It distinguishes itself from siblings like set_frame_range or set_render_engine by being a general property setter for multiple scene attributes, not a specialized tool for one property.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_frame_range or set_render_engine is provided. The description lists property options but doesn't clarify if this is the preferred method for setting those properties or when to choose specialized tools instead.

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