production.operation_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety baseline is covered; the description adds a non-obvious trait not in the annotations: 'Never contacts Blender,' which tells the agent this is a pure ledger/meta read that will not touch the live session. It does not say whether the ledger read is cheap or rate-limited, but the added disclosure is genuinely useful.

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?

One dense sentence with the payload front-loaded ('What happened to an operation'), the return states inline, and a single short clarifying sentence about not touching Blender. No filler, no repetition of schema fields.

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-shape explanation is not needed, and the annotations carry the safety profile. But both parameters are optional with null defaults, and the description does not state what happens if neither is supplied, nor the precedence when both are — the one ambiguity that could cause a wrong call on a simple lookup tool.

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%, so the description must compensate: it explains that operation_id is a client operation and correction_id covers preview/apply/revert phases, which the bare nullable strings in the schema do not convey. However, it omits format examples and, critically, whether the two parameters are mutually exclusive or which wins when both are supplied — a real gap given both default to null.

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 verb+resource ('what happened to an operation') and enumerates the exact return states (NEW/RUNNING/SUCCEEDED/FAILED/UNCERTAIN/REVERTED), and it names the two identifier types it accepts. It is clearly a status/lookup tool, though it never names a sibling (e.g. physics_status, asset_status, material_status) to disambiguate within the status-tool family.

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: look up an operation after a client operation_id has been issued, or inspect a correction_id's preview/apply/revert sub-operation. There is no explicit 'use this when X, not Y' and no statement about polling cadence or what to do if the result is FAILED, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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