blender_shapekeys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral transparency. It mentions handling creation, setting weights, and analysis, but omits critical details: that the 'operation' parameter selects the action, that only one operation runs per call, that parameters are specific to certain operations, and whether the tool is destructive (modifies blend files) or read-only. The description is too abstract for a tool with 14 parameters and multiple modes.

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, front-loading the core purpose ('Comprehensive shape key management') and then itemizing key use cases. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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 (14 parameters, one enum for operation, multiple operational modes), the description fails to explain how the 'operation' parameter dictates which parameters are relevant. It does not mention that the tool can perform only one operation per call. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description leaves the agent without a mental model of how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. For example, 'viseme_type' is already described in the schema. The description does not clarify parameter interdependencies or usage patterns.

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's domain ('shape key management for facial animation and VRM avatars') and lists specific use cases (viseme creation, blink, expressions, VRM compliance). Although the verb 'management' is broad, the details distinguish it from sibling tools that handle mesh, animation, or rigging. A score of 5 would require a more action-oriented first sentence.

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 for facial animation and VRM avatars but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., manual Blender shape key editing, other scripting tools). There is no 'when not to use' or mention of sibling tools. Without such guidance, an agent lacks decision context.

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