Create a stamped working copy of the open .blend in the working directory and open it with scripts disabled, leaving the source file unchanged for safe editing.
Save a stamped copy of the open .blend under /working, open it (scripts disabled) and register it as WORKING_COPY. The source file is not modified.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
Adds real context beyond the annotations: the source file is not modified, the copy lands under <workdir>/working, and it is opened with scripts disabled. The 'scripts disabled' note is valuable security context not visible in annotations. Missing is any mention of failure modes or whether an existing working copy is overwritten (consistent with idempotentHint=false).
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?
Two sentences, zero padding, and the destination/behavior details are front-loaded ahead of the non-destructive guarantee.
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, and the description covers destination, side effects, and safety. The only meaningful hole is the undocumented operation_id parameter.
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?
One optional parameter (operation_id) with 0% schema description coverage and no mention in the description. The description compensates for none of it, so the agent cannot learn what operation_id keys or when to supply it.
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 concrete actions (save a stamped copy, open it, register as WORKING_COPY) on a specific resource (the open .blend in <workdir>/working). The 'WORKING_COPY' designation implicitly separates it from asset_register_master and asset_register_fixture, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied by the semantics of a working copy, but the description never says when to call this versus asset_register_master/asset_register_fixture or what prerequisites (an open .blend) must hold. An agent must infer the workflow position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.