blender.render_preview

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the return format (image vs. file path via include_image), that size and samples are capped, and the context cost of larger max_edge. It does not state whether supplying engine/samples mutates scene state, which matters for a tool that can alter the active render configuration.

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-loaded with purpose, then a compact per-parameter block, then the sibling routing rule last. Every line carries information; nothing is redundant with the schema titles.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description explains what comes back (image or path) and the tradeoff governing it, so an agent can call it correctly. The only unaddressed gap is whether render settings persist in the scene after the call.

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 fully compensates: max_edge gets a range (64-2048), a default (512), and cost rationale; engine and samples are marked optional with 'omit to keep current/cheap default'; include_image's false behavior is spelled out.

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 and resource ('Render a small preview and return the image') plus the agent-facing rationale, and implicitly contrasts with the sibling blender.render by calling it a 'preview'.

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 'Prefer this over blender.render while iterating' and names the alternative for the opposite case ('Use blender.render for a final image the user will keep'), so the selection condition is unambiguous.

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