blender_curves

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

Annotations already mark the tool as not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds that it can add/remove modifiers, shift frames, and scale values, which conveys mutation. It does not, however, disclose side effects or prerequisites such as requiring an existing action, and it doesn't contradict the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with the core purpose first; the second sentence is somewhat abstract but earns its place by listing the operation families. No redundant restatement of the schema.

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 an 11-parameter multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description is a useful overview but incomplete: it doesn't explain what each op returns, how to target a specific F-curve via data_path, or what object/action prerequisites exist. The schema fills many gaps, but an agent would still need to infer operational behavior.

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?

With 91% schema description coverage, the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds value by grouping capabilities (interpolation/easing, handles, modifiers, retiming, scaling) that map to op and related parameters, and by clarifying that object refers to an object's action, but it doesn't detail individual parameter syntax or interactions.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Inspect and shape the F-curves of an object's action.' This clearly identifies the resource and differentiates it from sibling tools that handle keyframes, NLA, or drivers. The second sentence reinforces scope by enumerating interpolation, easing, handles, modifiers, retiming, and value scaling.

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 the tool's niche—'where animation gets its character rather than just its timing'—and lists concrete use cases. However, it never names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the boundary against the many sibling animation tools.

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