Plan and create collision-safe Blender actions with a checkpoint before creation, preserving original actions for safe animation workflow.
Plan/create a collision-safe Action; checkpoint before creation. Original Actions retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| assign | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| object_name | No | ||
| operation_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already state readOnly=false and destructive=false, and the description adds useful behavioral context: collision-safe creation, a checkpoint before creation, and retention of original Actions. However, it does not clarify whether checkpointing is automatic, how dry_run/operation_id affect behavior, or what the mutation actually changes.
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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. It could be slightly clearer about what 'Plan/create' means in practice, but it is appropriately short for a tool whose annotations and output schema carry some of the burden.
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 non-read-only creation tool with five parameters and no schema descriptions, the definition is too sparse. The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but the description still leaves key parameter semantics and usage guidance undocumented.
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% across five parameters, and the description does not define name, assign, dry_run, object_name, or operation_id. 'Collision-safe' and 'plan/create' weakly hint at name collision and dry-run semantics, but no parameter meaning is actually explained.
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 names a specific resource (Action) and a key property (collision-safe), and it mentions checkpointing before creation. It is clear what the tool broadly does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as animation_duplicate_action, animation_restore_action, or create_checkpoint.
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 when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives. The phrase 'checkpoint before creation' implies a prerequisite or safety step, but it is not clear whether this tool performs the checkpoint, whether the caller must use create_checkpoint first, or when to prefer this over duplicate/restore tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.