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 implies a mutation ('Configure'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. The mention of 'Confirmation dict' in Returns adds minimal behavioral context, but critical aspects like whether changes are reversible or require specific states are missing.

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 sections for Args and Returns, using bullet-like formatting. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though the 'Confirmation dict.' could be slightly more informative.

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 no annotations and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, for a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error conditions or side effects, making it minimally complete but with gaps in operational 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all three parameters: 'name' as the light object, 'use_shadow' for enabling shadows, and 'shadow_soft_size' for soft shadow radius, including default values. This effectively documents the parameters beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose with 'Configure shadow settings for a light,' specifying the verb (configure) and resource (shadow settings for a light). It distinguishes from siblings like 'set_light_property' by focusing specifically on shadow settings, but doesn't explicitly contrast with that sibling tool.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or compare it to sibling tools like 'set_light_property,' leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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