blender_annotation_dimension

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool creates endpoint markers, a connecting line, and a text label, and implies an additive, non-destructive operation. It does not cover persistence, repeat-call stacking, or return behavior, but the core behavioral effect is transparent.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The action, input geometry, and output components are all covered efficiently, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 definition is adequate for a simple annotation creation tool: it explains the purpose, the geometry, and the visual result, and the schema fully documents parameters. It could be improved by noting whether repeated calls stack or replace annotations, how to remove them, and what the tool returns, but these are not blockers for correct use.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented. The description's mention of calculated distance adds minimal context beyond the schema and does not meaningfully clarify offset, units, or label semantics.

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 ('Add'), a specific resource ('a dimension line between two 3D points'), and the concrete output it produces ('endpoint markers, a connecting line, and a text label'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic annotation tools and from measurement siblings like surface area or volume.

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 intended use is clear: annotate the distance between two 3D points. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is obvious enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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