blender_api_docs

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by specifying the return format (dict with success, message, data) and the intent to reduce hallucinated API calls. This is consistent with annotations and adds context beyond them.

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 and well-structured with examples and a return format section. While the Python code example is somewhat redundant, it doesn't waste space. Overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded with purpose.

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 simple lookup tool with an output schema, the description includes return format and usage intent, which is good. However, the unclear role of 'search' leaves a gap in completeness, making it not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'identifier' parameter through examples, but the 'search' parameter is never mentioned or clarified. This leaves significant ambiguity for a two-parameter tool, and the description fails to fully compensate for the schema gap.

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 tool's function: 'Look up Blender Python API documentation for an identifier.' It provides concrete examples (Mesh, bpy.types.Mesh, bpy.ops.mesh.primitive_cube_add) that illustrate scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate scripts or manipulate Blender scenes.

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 explicitly says 'Use before writing bpy scripts to reduce hallucinated API calls,' which gives clear context on when to use. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the primary use case is well-stated.

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