blender_activate_skill

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It states that activating a skill registers new tools for immediate use, but it does not address important behaviors such as whether multiple skills can be active simultaneously, if activation is reversible (though deactivate exists), or any side effects like overwriting previously loaded tools. The description lacks depth on the mutation's consequences.

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 relatively concise at five sentences plus an Args section. It front-loads the main purpose and then adds supporting details. There is no noticeable fluff, and the information is well-ordered. A small improvement could be to integrate the Arg description more tightly, but it is already efficient.

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?

The tool has low complexity (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the purpose, prerequisite, parameter, and effect of activation. However, it omits whether activation is session-persistent or if errors can occur (e.g., invalid skill name). Given the simplicity, these gaps are minor but notable.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no description for the 'skill_name' parameter), so the description must compensate. It adds examples ('modeling', 'materials', 'animation') and describes the parameter as 'Name of the skill to activate'. While helpful, it does not specify valid values, format, or that the name must come from 'list_skills', which is only mentioned earlier. The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 action 'activate a skill' and explains that it dynamically loads the skill's tool group, registering new MCP tools. It also mentions that each skill provides related tools and a workflow guide. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from its sibling 'blender_deactivate_skill', which would be the reverse operation, missing some differentiation.

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 explicit guidance to use 'list_skills' first, establishing a clear prerequisite. It implies the tool is used to load a skill's tools for immediate use. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like 'deactivate_skill', the context is clear enough for typical usage.

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