blender_geometry

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries some burden. It adds one useful behavioral detail: 'Edit-mode operations restore object mode automatically, even if the operator raises,' which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or other operational nuances, so the transparency is limited.

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, with two short paragraphs. It front-loads the purpose and lists operations efficiently. There is no wasted wording, though it could be more structured with explicit parameter mappings.

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 tool with 20 parameters and 14 distinct operations, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain return formats, error handling, how to select objects, or how to pair parameters with operations. Given no output schema and limited parameter documentation, the description is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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 20 parameters and 55% schema coverage, the description does not explain parameter usage at all. It merely lists operations, leaving the agent to guess which parameters apply to which operation. The schema provides some per-parameter hints, but many parameters (e.g., clip, merge, bisect, radius) lack context. The description fails to compensate for the schema gaps.

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 tool performs 'Geometry operations' and lists a comprehensive set of specific operations (mirror, array, solidify, etc.), distinguishing it from the 'generic modifier tool' and other sibling tools. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 notes these are operations 'that do not fit the generic modifier tool,' which gives an implicit usage boundary. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when to use this over them, such as blender_add_modifier or blender_edit_mesh. The guidance is minimal.

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