set_curve_geometry

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It says nothing about what changes are made, whether it modifies existing curves, if it requires a specific object type, or what side effects occur. The description offers zero behavioral insight.

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, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single sentence that only repeats the tool name wastes the opportunity to convey essential information. While there is no clutter, the lack of substantive content makes it inadequate.

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?

This is a 5-parameter tool with only one required parameter, an output schema, and no annotation coverage. The description must provide context about what the tool operates on, how parameters interrelate, and possible outcomes, but it offers none. The definition is completely inadequate for effective agent 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 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning. It does not. Parameter names like 'extrude' and 'bevel_depth' are not elaborated, leaving the agent guessing about units, defaults, or valid ranges. The description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 exactly the tool name with a prefix ('Blender Studio Pro MCP: set_curve_geometry'). It states no verb, no resource, and no effect. This is a tautology and provides no information about what the tool does, let alone how it differs from sibling tools like create_curve or set_text_body.

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 alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, target object types, or conditions that would select it over similar curve-related tools. An agent cannot infer usage context from the description alone.

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