blender_modify_object

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the concrete mutations performed and a useful unit detail ('rotation in degrees'), which is genuine behavioral context. It says nothing about reversibility, error handling, required permissions, or side effects such as how parenting interacts with world transforms.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of operations. No filler and the core purpose leads the statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description enumerates the mutation surface for a tool with 0% schema coverage, making it largely sufficient to call correctly. Minor gaps remain around permissions and failure behavior for a mutation tool with no annotations.

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 compensate, and it does: it maps seven of the eight parameters to their meaning (location, rotation, scale, new_name, visible, parent, collection), leaving only object_name implicit. It still omits format details such as the required array shape for location/rotation/scale, so it falls short of fully replacing the 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 gives a specific verb ('Modifies') and resource ('an existing object in the scene') and enumerates the operations available (transforms, renaming, visibility, parenting, collection move). This implicitly distinguishes it from blender_create_object ('existing' vs new), but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'existing object' – an agent can infer this is for changing objects already in the scene rather than creating them. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as blender_manage_modifiers or blender_inspect_object.

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