blender_modify_object

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context by specifying that the 'delete' action is destructive and irreversible, which aligns with annotations. No additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth needs) are mentioned, but the description effectively reinforces the key destructive behavior.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a short bullet list. Every sentence adds value: purpose, destructive warning, and usage guidelines. No redundant or superfluous content.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (13 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose, destructive action, and provides alternatives. It doesn't explain return values (acceptable per rules since no output schema). Some edge cases or error conditions are missing, but overall it's sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% (all 13 parameters have descriptions in the input schema). The tool description does not add supplementary meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states 'Modify an existing object' and lists specific actions (transform, parent, visibility, rename, set origin, delete), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_create_object, blender_manage_modifier, etc.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use this when' and 'Do NOT use for' directives, listing specific sibling tools (blender_manage_modifier, blender_manage_material, blender_manage_constraints, blender_manage_physics), which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives.

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