blend-ai

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'set' operation (implying mutation) but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what the 'Confirmation dict' contains. 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 Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the 'Returns' line could be more informative (e.g., specifying what the confirmation includes).

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 has an output schema (which should document the return value), the description doesn't need to explain returns in detail. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) to be fully complete.

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 schema provides no parameter documentation. The description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'object_name' as 'Name of the mesh object' and 'smooth' as 'True for smooth shading, False for flat shading'. This adds essential meaning, though it doesn't detail constraints like valid object name formats.

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 action ('Set smooth or flat shading') and the target ('on an object'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_viewport_shading' or 'set_material_property', which might have overlapping domains in a 3D modeling context.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the object must be a mesh), exclusions, or related tools for similar operations, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling tool names alone.

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