blender_validate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it explains the per-check status levels and, importantly, that a crashing check is reported as an 'error' entry rather than aborting the audit, which is non-obvious and useful for reliable invocation.

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 tightly structured: purpose, usage timing, and behavior are each covered in distinct, efficient sentences. The long first sentence is dense but every item in it is substantive, and the other two sentences add necessary context without fluff.

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 complex 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the scope of checks, the output format (scored report with statuses), and error resilience. It doesn't specify the precise structure of the scored report, but the status-level explanation plus the `response_format` parameter makes the return value sufficiently predictable.

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 90%, so the input schema already documents most parameters. The description adds a meaningful note about `target` for real-world proportion checking, but it does not clarify the other parameters beyond schema content, which is acceptable given the high coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Audit') and resource ('the model'), and enumerates the exact categories checked, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from similar siblings like blender_find_problems or blender_analyze_mesh, but the comprehensive 'audit and scored report' framing clearly sets it apart.

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 gives explicit timing guidance: 'the first tool to reach for after building something, and again before exporting.' It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over sibling tools.

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