recipe.hard_surface_shell

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

Annotations are all false, indicating a mutating, non-idempotent, possibly destructive operation. The description adds only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and mentions argument checks, but discloses nothing about what the tool changes, creates, or destroys, nor any side effects.

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 it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks structure and front-loaded key information, providing only a command identifier and generic risk/maturity labels.

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?

For a recipe that likely creates a complex object, the description is grossly inadequate. With 8 parameters, an output schema, and no explanation of behavior, usage, or expected results, an agent cannot determine when or how to call this tool.

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 coverage is 50%, and the description adds no parameter explanations. It does not clarify the meaning of dimensions, wallThickness, bevelWidth, or the role of internal parameters. The description fails to compensate for the schema's incomplete documentation.

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 merely restates the command name and provides risk/maturity tags. It gives no indication of what the recipe does, what object or scene it produces, or what 'hard_surface_shell' means. It fails to distinguish this from sibling recipe tools.

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 other recipe tools like blender_recipe_spear or blender_recipe_procedural_courtyard. No conditions, 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.