workbench_blender_script

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a create/write operation but does not disclose side effects, whether files are modified, permissions required, idempotency, or what 'background' means.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it includes key formatting constraints. It is concise, though it trades away necessary usage and behavioral detail.

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 output schema and no annotations, the description omits expected result, side effects, and workflow context. An agent cannot tell what happens after the script is created or how `job_id` drives the operation.

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 the description never mentions `job_id` or explains how it relates to the created script. The parameter title is self-explanatory at a superficial level, but the description adds no semantic value and fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it creates a 'separate background Blender import script' with concrete constraints ('metres, normalized height and grounded origin'). It is clear about the output artifact, but it does not differentiate this from close siblings in the pipeline, and the word 'background' is ambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as workbench_prepare, workbench_submit, or workbench_ingest. No prerequisites, workflow position, or exclusions are mentioned; only the action itself is stated.

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