Copy reference images or files into a new immutable character version to preserve exact source assets for Blender character production.
Copy reference images or files into a new immutable character version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| request_id | Yes | ||
| character_id | Yes | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| reference_files | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the operation copies (rather than moves) and the result is an immutable version, implying existing versions are untouched. It omits error behavior, idempotency/retry semantics (despite a request_id parameter hinting at that), and any permission requirements.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler, and the key outcome (a new immutable version) is front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but with four required parameters at 0% schema coverage and zero annotations, the definition is materially incomplete. It never clarifies how project_root and character_id relate, whether request_id provides idempotency, or what a caller must do before invoking it.
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% for all four required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. Only reference_files is loosely hinted at by 'reference images or files'; project_root, character_id, and especially request_id are never explained, leaving their roles and expected formats to guesswork.
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 gives a specific verb (copy), a resource (reference images or files), and a destination (a new immutable character version), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as create_character or promote_version, which prevents a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated preconditions such as whether the character must already exist or whether the source files must be validated first. The single sentence describes what happens, not when it is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.