publish_blend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningfully: it declares the operation is non-destructive to the original, that results are queued/asynchronous, and that Blender auto-execution is disabled. It does not state required permissions, error modes, or what is actually emitted as a result.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the non-destructive guarantee. The 'material contract and queued/result semantics as build_asset' sentence is compact but depends on external knowledge of a sibling tool.

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?

Workflow placement, non-destructiveness, and async semantics are covered, and build_asset is cited for return behavior. However, with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage, and no mention of what a publish produces or where, an agent still has gaps before calling correctly.

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% across four parameters, so the description must compensate — and it does not. It never explains asset_id, collider, or position, and only loosely implies blend_file via 'existing saved .blend'.

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 (publish) and resource (Export collection of a saved .blend), plus the non-destructive constraint. It implicitly distinguishes itself from build_asset by requiring an existing saved file, though it never names the alternative outright.

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?

'Use this after another Blender tool has modeled and saved an asset' gives a clear timing precondition for invoking it. It lacks explicit when-not guidance, e.g. what to use instead of publishing or when a publish would fail.

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