blender_nla

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

With all annotation hints false (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal the key effect ('active action stops driving the pose') and mentions layering/blending/muting, but it omits the 'remove' operation side effects, undo behavior, and whether tracks/strips are permanently altered.

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 a single, efficient sentence with the main workflow front-loaded. It is not verbose)Skip not penalized for brevity, but could have briefly enumerated the four ops to earn a 5.

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 tool has 9 parameters, 4 sub-operations, and no output schema, yet the description only covers a high-level workflow. It misses the 'list' and 'remove' operations, the response_format parameter, and any details about frames or track naming conventions. An agent would need additional context to correctly call all variants.

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 67%, so the schema handles most parameters. The description adds conceptual understanding of push/blend/mute but does not map to specific parameters or explain list/remove operations. It provides moderate value beyond the schema.

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 identifies the tool's domain ('non-linear animation') and specifies the core operation: pushing an action onto its own track so the active action stops driving the pose, plus layering, blending, and muting strips. This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling animation tools.

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 usage for NLA workflows but never states when to prefer this tool over other animation tools (e.g., blender_create_animation, blender_keyframe_channel, blender_pose). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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