updateBlendShapes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't state whether this is destructive (overwrites existing data), requires specific permissions, has side effects on related resources, or provides confirmation of changes. For a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update multiple BlendShapes') and includes the key operational detail ('in a single operation'). Every word serves a purpose, making it maximally concise while still conveying essential information.

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 (mutation operation with deeply nested parameters), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., partial vs. full updates), error handling, performance implications of batch operations, or expected response format. For a tool that modifies 3D modeling data, more contextual information is needed for safe and effective use.

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 schema fully documents the single 'items' parameter and its nested structure. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain what 'multiple BlendShapes' means in practice or provide examples. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('multiple BlendShapes'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createBlendShapes' and 'deleteBlendShapes' by focusing on updates rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of BlendShapes are updated (weights, deltas, etc.), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing BlendShapes), compare to single-update tools (none in siblings), or specify use cases like batch operations. Without any context about when or why to choose this tool, users must infer usage from the name alone.

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