blender_validation

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

No annotations are present, so the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool modifies the model, the output format, or any side effects. For a validation tool, stating 'performs pre-flight checks' weakly implies read-only behavior, but this is insufficient without explicit safety guarantees.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and specifying supported platforms. No redundant words, earning its place.

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?

With an output schema present (context indicates true), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requires an active model) and does not elaborate on the operations listed in the schema, making it only minimally 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only provides a high-level purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it performs validation and pre-flight checks for avatars and 3D models, targeting specific platforms like VRChat and Resonite. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other operations (e.g., mesh editing, rigging).

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 this tool should be used for validation before deployment, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It provides clear context but lacks direct guidance.

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