blender_manage_addon

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that install runs third-party code, requires confirm, accepts only .zip, and refuses the call without the flag to prevent silent installs. This is critical safety information not present in the schema or annotations. It does not cover all side effects (e.g., disabling behavior), but the key risk is well-documented.

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 two short sentences, the first stating the core purpose and the second adding essential constraints. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler. Information is front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's function and key requirements.

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?

With 8 parameters, an enum action, and a safety-critical confirm flag, this tool is moderately complex. The description, combined with thorough schema comments, covers the purpose, install constraints, and parameter meanings. It doesn't mention that url and path are alternative sources (agent can infer from 'For install'), nor does it describe return values, but no output schema exists and the core usage is well-covered.

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 100%, providing detailed comments for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema: only .zip archives are accepted, confirm is mandatory for installs, and the call is refused without it. This clarifies the install flow and the relationship between url/path and confirm, enhancing the schema's documentation.

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 the exact function: 'Enable, disable or install a Blender add-on.' This clearly names the verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like blender_list_addons which only list addons. The purpose is unambiguous and acts as a precise filter.

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 clear context: installing requires confirm=true and only .zip archives are accepted, with the call refused without the flag. It gives concrete usage conditions but does not explicitly mention alternative tools for listing addons or installing packages. However, the action enum and purpose make the appropriate scenario evident.

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