publish_blend

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavioral fact that the original .blend is not modified and that file auto-execution is disabled, plus async 'queued/result' semantics. But it leaves side effects vague and doesn't state auth needs, failure modes, or whether publishing is reversible.

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-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with usage and cross-references. Three compact sentences with no obvious filler, though the 'material contract' phrase is opaque.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally cover return format and mutation safety. It partially does (original preserved, queued/result semantics) but leaves params, error behavior, and return shape unaddressed for a mutating tool with 4 undocumented parameters.

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% and all four parameters (asset_id, blend_file, collider, position) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning, required-vs-optional guidance, or format for blend_file/position. This is a significant gap for a 4-param tool.

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: publishing the Export collection of an existing saved .blend while preserving the original. It distinguishes from publish_prepared by name. However, the notion of a 'material contract' and 'queued/result semantics' is jargon an agent cannot independently verify.

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?

Explicitly says to use this after another Blender tool has modeled and saved an asset, and names publish_prepared as the alternative for a reviewed import_asset preview. This gives a clear selection condition, though it doesn't state when publishing would be inappropriate beyond that.

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