edit_blendspace_sample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds context by clarifying that anim_path empty keeps the current animation, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the operation modifies the asset in place, potential side effects, or permission requirements. Mild transparency but incomplete for a mutation 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 one sentence followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the purpose, contains no fluff, and every sentence/line adds essential information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers the required parameters and key behavior (editing position and/or animation). It is sufficiently complete for a simple edit tool, though it could mention error conditions like invalid asset_path or sample_index, but that is not critical.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by listing every parameter with a concise explanation: asset_path as the BlendSpace asset path, sample_index as the index to edit, x/y as new axis values, and anim_path as the new animation path with empty meaning keep current. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though it lacks details like units or constraints.

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 starts with 'Edit a BlendSpace sample position and/or animation,' which clearly identifies the verb (edit) and resource (BlendSpace sample). This distinguishes it from siblings like add_blendspace_sample and delete_blendspace_sample, which perform different operations on the same resource.

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 implicitly indicates this tool is for modifying an existing sample at a given index, contrasting with add/delete siblings, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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