blender_scatter_on_surface

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions using a particle system, which hints at the mechanism, but it does not state whether a new particle system is created, whether existing ones are modified, whether the operation is destructive, or what the final scene structure looks like. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 leads with the core action, provides concrete examples, and summarizes the controllable aspects without waste. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core function and parameter categories but leaves out important context: expected return value, side effects on the Blender scene, prerequisites (target/source must exist), and how the result appears. It is adequate for basic understanding but not fully complete.

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?

The schema already documents 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a high-level summary ('count, randomization, and area restriction') that repeats the schema rather than providing deeper detail about how these parameters interact or what values are meaningful.

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 verb ('Scatter') and clearly identifies the resource ('objects on a mesh surface') and method ('using a particle system'). The use cases ('bolts, rivets, damage marks, vegetation') make the tool's intent immediately obvious and help distinguish it from geometry-node-based alternatives like blender_geonode_scatter_instances.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus the many similar scattering or placement tools, such as blender_geonode_scatter_instances or blender_array_along_curve. There is no explicit context, precondition, or exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate situation from the tool name alone.

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