manage_blender_addons

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

Annotations are all neutral (no readOnly/destructive flags), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format and that operations mirror blender_addons, but it does not describe side effects of operations like install/disable, nor does it explain permission requirements. The alias relationship adds some transparency, but details are deferred to the sibling tool.

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 compact, front-loaded with the alias notice, and uses clear sections for return format and examples. Every sentence contributes, and the example demonstrates real usage without redundancy. It is a model of concise documentation.

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 compatibility alias with an output schema, the description provides the essential operation list and return format, which is useful. However, it lacks parameter-to-operation mapping and details on operation effects, though an agent can consult the primary blender_addons tool. Given the complexity (6 params, 0% schema descriptions), more explanation would be needed for full self-sufficiency.

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 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, requiring the description to compensate. It provides an operation list and one example (operation=search, query), but does not explain parameters like url, addon_name, enable_after, or enabled_only. The operation names imply some usage, but this is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as a Blender addon management compatibility alias, explicitly listing the operations it mirrors (search, install_known, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool blender_addons by stating that blender_addons is preferred, making the purpose and relationship unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'prefer blender_addons', giving clear guidance on when to use the alternative instead. It also notes that operations mirror blender_addons, so the agent knows this alias is functionally equivalent, which is strong usage direction.

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