recipe.spear

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety profile, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' and a vague policy note, with no mention of what happens in Blender, whether objects are created or modified, or what side effects to expect.

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 short, but brevity is not the issue: under-specification is. The sentences do not earn their place because they convey metadata rather than behavioral or semantic content that helps invoke the tool.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the definition is far from complete for a 9-parameter, 6-required tool. It lacks purpose, side effects, parameter meaning, usage context, and session-flow integration, so an agent cannot safely or correctly select and invoke this tool from the description alone.

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?

The description provides zero parameter-level semantics. With schema description coverage at only 33% and five required geometry parameters (headLength, headRadius, length, shaftRadius, name) left undocumented, an agent cannot determine units, coordinate conventions, or even whether 'name' refers to an object, material, or recipe.

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 repeats the command name ('recipe.spear') and adds risk/maturity metadata; it never states what the tool does, what resource it acts on, or what output it produces. It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like blender_recipe_rigged_spear_character.

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 the many other recipe or spear-related tools. The 'Requirements' sentence mentions session policy and argument checks but provides no actionable selection criteria or exclusions.

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