blender_array_along_curve

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the non-destructive, parametric modifier approach. But it never states that the source object itself is mutated in place by adding modifiers, and the verb 'Instance' is ambiguous about whether a new object is created. The apply=true destructive baking is only covered by the schema's parameter description, not the main description.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the core operation and illustrative use cases, the second adds the mechanism. The em-dash list is information-dense and every clause earns its place.

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?

Purpose, scenarios, and mechanism are covered, and the schema fully documents parameters, so the tool is callable. But with no annotations and no output schema, an agent must infer whether the source object is modified in place, whether a new object results, and what the call returns — meaningful gaps for verifying success.

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 (source_object, curve_name, count, fit_type, apply) are already documented structurally. The description adds only the generic notion of 'parametric control' and does not illuminate enum semantics or parameter interactions, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific action ('Instance objects along a curve path') and names a clear resource, backed by concrete use cases (rivet lines, bolt patterns, cable runs) and the mechanism (Array + Curve modifiers). It makes the tool's function obvious, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like blender_geonode_array_grid or blender_scatter_on_surface.

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 example scenarios imply when an agent should use this tool, and 'parametric control' hints at the trade-off against geometry-node-based alternatives. However, no alternative tools are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the choice between modifier-based and geonode-based instancing to inference.

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