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

Goes well beyond destructiveHint=true by explaining the nature of the destruction: current work can be interrupted and unsaved changes may require confirmation inside Blender. It also discloses a fallback behavior (desktop may start if the control service is unavailable) and clarifies that the result is restart/control status rather than a completed scene.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then risk, then result semantics, then alternatives. Dense but every clause carries information; the only mild cost is that the risk, fallback, and routing information are packed into a single block rather than separated.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden and does so: what it does, what it destroys, what can go wrong, what it returns (status, not a scene), and which siblings to use instead. Nothing an agent needs to decide or call correctly is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description could add. It does correctly imply that the 'selected' Blender is the implicit target chosen via select_blender, which is useful framing.

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 pair and resource: 'Close and relaunch the selected receiving Blender with its Blender Bridge extension'. The scope ('selected receiving Blender') clearly separates it from open_blender, start_bridge, and ensure_blender_extension.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('after the user requests or agrees to a restart') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: get_setup_status for passive diagnosis, ensure_blender_extension for install/repair without a restart. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure.

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