blender_assign_to_collection

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds context by stating that objects remain linked to other collections, clarifying that the operation is additive and non-destructive. It also warns that the collection must already exist, which is not conveyed by the annotations. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 concise—two sentences—with the primary action front-loaded. It immediately states what the tool does, then adds a prerequisite and a behavioral clarification. There is no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

For a simple operation with two required parameters, the description covers the core action, the prerequisite (collection must exist), and the non-destructive behavior. It doesn't mention error handling or return format, but the response_format parameter has its own description and the tool is straightforward. The guidance to create the collection first implicitly covers the main failure mode, making it adequately 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 coverage is only 33% (response_format has a description; objects and collection do not). The description implicitly maps 'objects' to the list of objects and 'collection' to the target collection, but it does not provide explicit format details (e.g., object names, identifiers) or edge cases. Given the low schema coverage, the description partially compensates by stating the purpose but lacks explicit parameter-level explanations.

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 states a clear action: 'Add objects to an collection that already exists in the scene.' It specifies the resource (objects) and destination (collection), and further clarifies the semantic (adds a reference, not moving). This is specific and distinguishes it from other collection-related operations like creating a collection.

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 explicitly directs the agent to use blender_create_collection first if the collection is missing, providing a clear condition for using an alternative. It also explains the behavioral difference (adds a reference rather than moving), which helps decide between this and a potential move operation. While it doesn't enumerate all alternatives, the guidance is sufficient for the primary scenario.

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