blend-ai

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Set') but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, or what happens if an invalid brush type is used. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return confirmation, though it could improve by adding more behavioral context or usage prerequisites to fully compensate for the lack of 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter, the description compensates well by listing all possible brush type values (e.g., DRAW, CLAY, SMOOTH) in the Args section. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's generic string type, though it doesn't explain the effects of each brush 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 the active sculpt brush') and identifies the resource ('sculpt brush'), making the purpose immediately apparent. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'enter_sculpt_mode' or 'set_brush_property' by focusing on brush type selection rather than mode entry or property adjustment.

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 context through the mention of 'active sculpt brush' and the list of brush types, suggesting it's for sculpting operations. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_brush_property' or prerequisites such as needing to be in sculpt mode, leaving some ambiguity.

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