blender_shape_keys

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the guarantee 'without touching the base mesh,' which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects such as the behavior of the 'remove' op, how existing shape keys are affected, or whether vertex indices are modified in place. Given the annotations cover the basic mutation profile, the description adds limited additional transparency.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, with no wasted words. However, given the complexity of 10 parameters and 5 operations, the brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient conciseness, though it remains clear and readable.

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 10 parameters, 5 enumerated operations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain the 'op' parameter, the required object argument, or how the deformation works. An agent cannot reliably determine how to invoke the tool for a specific task without opening the schema and guessing at the operation semantics.

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 60%, meaning several parameters (max, min, object, from_mix) lack descriptions. The tool description does not mention any parameters or compensate for the gaps, so it adds no value beyond the schema. With a moderate coverage level, the description should clarify the undocumented parameters but does not.

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 and drive shape keys, with examples of use cases (facial blends, damage states, LOD morphs, simple deformation). The phrase 'without touching the base mesh' adds a distinct characteristic, but it does not explicitly differentiate from any sibling tools, though no direct sibling for shape keys exists.

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 when to use shape keys via the listed use cases, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like modifiers or geometry nodes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context.

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