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 mentions the action but does not cover permissions, side effects, error conditions, or performance implications, leaving gaps 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, though the formatting could be more integrated with the main text for better flow.

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, no annotations, and an output schema that covers return values, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the action and parameters but could benefit from more behavioral 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 adds meaning by explaining 'name' as the object to snap and 'grid_size' as the cell size with a default, though it could detail units or constraints. Since there are only 2 parameters, this is adequate.

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 ('Snap an object's location') and the resource ('object'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'set_location' or 'move_to_collection' by focusing on grid alignment rather than direct positioning or organizational changes.

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 such as 'set_location' for manual positioning or other transformation tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios for grid snapping.

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