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 implies a mutation ('Toggle'), suggesting it changes viewport state, but doesn't detail permissions, side effects, or error handling. The mention of a 'Confirmation dict' return adds some context, but overall behavioral traits are under-specified for a tool that modifies settings.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns) and uses minimal sentences. However, the opening line 'Toggle a viewport overlay setting.' could be more specific (e.g., mentioning it's for Blender viewport), and the list of overlay values is lengthy but necessary, keeping it efficient overall.

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 (2 parameters, mutation operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It documents parameters well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error cases or the exact structure of the 'Confirmation dict'. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, more context would be beneficial.

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 adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explicitly lists all valid values for the 'overlay' parameter (e.g., 'show_wireframes', 'show_face_orientation') and clarifies that 'enabled' is a boolean for toggling state. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 ('Toggle') and resource ('viewport overlay setting'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar viewport-related tools like 'set_viewport_shading' or 'set_camera_property' among the siblings, which would require a 5.

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, such as other viewport configuration tools in the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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