blender_manage_action

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

The description includes 'remove' as an operation, which is destructive, but the annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This directly contradicts the structured metadata. The description also adds a useful behavioral detail about creating a slot up front, but the contradiction outweighs that positive. Per rubric, score 1 because the description contradicts 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the operation list, and a concise version-specific note. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and scannable.

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?

The description covers the core operations and the version-specific behavior, and the schema documents all parameters. However, the contradiction about destructive behavior leaves an important gap: an agent might assume 'remove' is non-destructive. It also does not mention return values or error conditions, though these are not strictly required. Given the contradiction, the description is not fully reliable.

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 100%, so all parameters are already described in the input schema. The description adds little beyond listing operations, which maps to the 'op' enum but does not explain parameter semantics further. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Create, assign, rename, copy or remove an action.' It names the resource (actions) and the specific operations, making it distinct from the read-only sibling blender_list_actions. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other management tools or state which tool to prefer for listing, so it is not a full 5.

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 provides a version-specific usage note: 'Handles Blender 4.4+ slotted actions, creating the slot up front so keys can be inserted immediately afterwards.' This gives context on when to use it (for 4.4+ slotted actions) but does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like blender_list_actions for read-only queries. No explicit exclusions or trade-offs are given.

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