blender_grease_pencil

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

The description lists 'delete_strokes: Remove strokes from a GP frame' which is a destructive behavior, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This contradicts the annotation's implication that the tool is not destructive. No other behavioral context (e.g., side effects, prerequisites) is disclosed.

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 well-structured with a clear rationale header and a bulleted operation list. It is somewhat long but each line conveys a distinct operation, so the length is justified. The use of markdown makes it scannable.

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 tool's complexity (27 params, 12 operations), the description provides a solid overview but does not fully explain prerequisites or operation-specific parameter requirements. However, the input schema and output schema cover many details, making the description sufficient for selection and basic invocation.

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 100% with each parameter already describing its 'used by' operation, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping operations into a coherent list, giving agents a high-level understanding of how parameters fit together across the 12 operations.

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 consolidates 12 Grease Pencil operations and provides an explicit list of operations, each with a brief verb+resource description. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on mesh, materials, or other Blender domains, leaving no doubt about its purpose.

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 implies usage through its operation list ('Use for Grease Pencil 2D animation operations') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use. It names no sibling tools or exclusions, so guidance is present but indirect.

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