blender_render_animation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two transport modes and their implications (live add-on session vs separate background process), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention whether rendering is blocking or async, how long it might take, or what the output schema contains.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action and optional parameters; the second provides the key transport decision. It's front-loaded with the action and scoped efficiently.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, so the description must do heavy lifting. It covers the main parameters and the transport modes, but doesn't explain factory_startup, the meaning of the default output_path '//render_', or what the output schema contains. For a rendering tool that may run long jobs, more context about blocking behavior would help.

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 mentions output path, frame range, and render engine, which maps to output_path, frame_start/frame_end, and engine parameters. However, it doesn't explain transport, blend_file, or factory_startup beyond the transport mention. The description adds some meaning but leaves several parameters unexplained.

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 renders an animation, with optional output path, frame range, and render engine. It distinguishes itself from blender_render_still by specifying 'animation' as the resource, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use transport='bridge' vs transport='headless', which is a key usage decision. It doesn't explicitly state when to use this over blender_render_still, but the animation vs still distinction is implied by the tool name and description.

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