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. It mentions the action ('Apply') and the method ('Automatically unwraps'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or error handling. It adds some context about the projection type, but more behavioral traits would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 purpose, followed by a clear breakdown of arguments and returns. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of a UV projection tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is mostly complete: it explains the purpose, parameters, and return value. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or performance, and while an output schema exists, the description still briefly mentions the return format, which is helpful but not fully necessary.

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%, but the description compensates fully by explaining all four parameters in detail: 'object_name' (Name of the mesh object), 'angle_limit' (Angle limit in degrees for splitting faces with range), 'island_margin' (Margin between UV islands with range), and 'area_weight' (Weight given to face area for island arrangement with range). This adds significant meaning 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 action ('Apply Smart UV Project') and the target ('to a mesh object'), with specific details about the method ('Automatically unwraps the mesh using angle-based projection'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'uv_unwrap' by specifying the 'Smart' variant and angle-based projection.

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 for unwrapping meshes with angle-based projection, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'uv_unwrap' or 'pack_uv_islands'. It provides no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the context somewhat vague.

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