blockbench_patch_model

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It mentions atomic refinement and use of stable identifiers, but does not explain side effects (e.g., whether changes are permanent), required permissions, or what happens to removed cubes. The description is too vague to fully inform an agent about the tool's behavior.

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 two sentences and front-loaded, efficiently stating the purpose and usage context. It could be slightly more structured, but it is concise without wasted words.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too brief. It does not mention required fields, parameter purposes, or return values. For a tool with zero annotations and schema coverage, more detail is needed to be complete.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters (cubes, groups, remove_cubes). It does not mention that cubes require an 'id' field or describe the structure of the arrays. The description adds no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool refines or removes cubes/bones by stable name/UUID after visual review, and specifies it is for turntable-driven correction without rebuilding. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like blockbench_apply_model or blockbench_audit_model, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a clear usage context ('for turntable-driven correction without rebuilding') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use the tool or alternatives. It implies that rebuilding from scratch is a different use case but does not name specific sibling tools.

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