blender_validate_asset

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

With no annotations, the description does disclose meaningful behavior: what is checked, that asset_json triggers a sidecar cross-check, that non-manifold is bounded, and that an environment variable must be configured. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what the pass/fail output looks like, or how the default tool reports failures.

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?

Terse and front-loaded — the core action and its check list come first, optional sidecar behavior second, prerequisite last. The parenthetical enumeration is dense but each clause carries information; no filler.

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 six-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the checks and most parameters but omits what the validator returns (report shape, exit/status semantics) and how defaults like tol=0.02 and nonmanifold_max=0 affect outcomes, leaving an agent to infer result handling.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and mostly succeeds: tol relates to the height_m dimension check, tri_budget caps triangles, nonmanifold_max bounds non-manifold edges, and asset_json enables sidecar cross-checking. Only glb_path is left unexplained, and it is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (run the asset validator) and enumerates the exact checks performed: dimensions vs height_m tolerance, tri budget, NaN, zero-area faces, non-manifold geometry, PBR maps. No sibling tool performs validation, and the description makes the tool's role 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?

Implicitly scopes usage (validate an exported asset, optionally with its sidecar via asset_json) and notes the ASSET_VALIDATOR_PY prerequisite, but gives no explicit when/when-not guidance or workflow ordering relative to siblings like export_glb or compare_ref.

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