object.instance

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, which are not explicitly contradicted, but the description adds very little behavioral context. It mentions 'risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3' which are beyond annotations but are generic. It does not explain the side effects of instancing (e.g., creating a new object linked to the original) or any transformation details.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the command name but includes boilerplate risk/maturity statements that are not operationally useful. The structure is adequate for a minimal definition, but the conciseness is due to omission, not efficiency.

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 there are 7 parameters with low coverage, no guidance on selection, and an output schema that could help understand return values but is not referenced, the description is incomplete. An agent cannot confidently call this tool without further searching for documentation. The description does not explain what instancing does, how to specify the source object, or what the output implies.

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?

With 43% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for undocumented parameters. The parameters `name`, `objectId`, `_expectedSceneRevision`, and others are not explained in the description. The schema itself has descriptions for only some underscore-prefixed params, but key ones like `newName` (required) and `name`/`objectId` lack semantic meaning. The description adds zero parameter guidance.

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 only names the command `object.instance` without explaining what instancing does or what the tool accomplishes. It does not state a clear verb and resource beyond the title, and it does not differentiate from siblings like `blender_object_duplicate` or `blender_object_create_*`. The description is essentially a tautology.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when to choose a different tool like duplicate or create. The only context is generic risk/maturity notes, which do not help with selection.

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