blender_open_file

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

The description goes beyond the existing destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating that opening the file replaces the current scene and that unsaved changes will be lost. It also discloses the return value, providing useful behavioral context for the agent.

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 concise and well-structured: no fluff, with purpose, warning, args, returns, and example all in appropriate sections. The warning is placed prominently, and every sentence contributes value.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with a simple output schema, the description is complete. It covers behavior, side effects, return value, and an example. There are no significant gaps for an agent to use it 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?

Given the schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining the `filepath` parameter as an absolute path to a .blend file. It also provides an example invocation, which clarifies usage. It could add more detail about constraints (e.g., file must exist) but is sufficient for a single simple parameter.

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 opens a .blend file in Blender and replaces the current scene, distinguishing it from sibling tools like blender_save_file and blender_get_scene_info.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use the tool – to load a saved .blend file into Blender – and includes a warning about unsaved changes being lost, which is an important usage caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios other than the data loss warning.

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