blender_reconcile_object_ids

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

With idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, the annotations already signal mutation behavior; the description adds useful detail that the operation does not rename objects or change geometry. It does not discuss what happens to existing codex3d_uuid values, but the idempotency hint partially covers repeat 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and target are front-loaded, and the non-destructive clarification is kept to a single trailing clause.

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 one-parameter tool with a simple mutation and idempotency annotation, the description gives enough to select and invoke confidently. Minor gaps remain around return/confirmation behavior and behavior when no objects match the prefix, but these are not blocking for a tool this simple.

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 only parameter, prefix, has 0% schema coverage and minimal constraints, so the description bears the burden of explaining it. The phrase 'with an explicit name prefix' establishes that prefix selects objects by name, which is meaningful beyond the schema. It could clarify matching semantics, but for a single string parameter this is adequate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assign') and names the exact target ('stable codex3d_uuid properties') and selection condition ('legacy objects with an explicit name prefix'). It also differentiates from nearby siblings like blender_rename_object by explicitly stating it does not rename or modify geometry.

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?

It provides a clear trigger condition: use when legacy objects share an explicit name prefix and need stable uuid properties. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusion cases, but among the siblings only this tool is for ID reconciliation, so the context is sufficient.

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