add_shape_key

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

No annotations are provided (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It reveals nothing: no hint that this creates/modifies shape keys, no information on side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The word 'add' implies creation but no specifics.

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 short (one line), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It does not front-load any useful information; it simply repeats the tool name. While not verbose, it fails to earn its place by providing any actionable 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 has 3 parameters and no annotations, the description provides virtually nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly. There is no mention of the required parameter 'object_name', default behaviors, or return format, making the description completely inadequate.

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 0%—neither the description nor the property definitions explain the meaning of 'name', 'from_mix', or 'object_name'. The description adds zero value beyond the schema field names, and with no parameter explanations, an agent cannot infer 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 is 'Blender Studio Pro MCP: add_shape_key', which is merely the tool name prefixed with a product label. It does not state a verb, resource, or any action semantics. It is a tautology—restating the name without explaining what the operation does.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the sibling tools (e.g., list_shape_keys, set_shape_key_value, remove_shape_key). No context, prerequisites, or alternative selection criteria are provided.

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