execute_blender_code

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, potential for irreversible changes, error handling, or any execution environment details beyond the fact that it runs Python inside Blender. The description provides no behavioral traits beyond what annotations already state.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded and free of unnecessary detail, earning its place. No fluff or repetition of schema information.

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 an arbitrary code execution tool, the description covers purpose and usage guidance, but lacks behavioral warnings (e.g., risk of destructive changes) and parameter specifics. However, annotations cover the destructive hint and an output schema exists, reducing the need to describe return values. The strong guidance to prefer structured tools adds context, but the description still misses safety caveats expected for a powerful 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?

The schema has one parameter 'code' with zero description coverage. The description says 'Jalankan Python bebas', which clarifies that 'code' is the Python code to be executed in Blender. However, it does not elaborate on expected syntax, whether it is a script or expression, access to bpy, or any constraints. It minimally compensates for the schema gap.

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 clearly states 'Jalankan Python bebas di dalam Blender' (run free Python in Blender), specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by advising to prioritize structured tools, implying it is a fallback for arbitrary code execution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or further scope the purpose beyond 'free Python'.

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?

The description explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Utamakan tool terstruktur' (prioritize structured tools) and 'gunakan search_api_docs dulu untuk mencari API yang benar' (use search_api_docs first to find the correct API). This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool (after structured tools and API docs are insufficient) and suggests a prerequisite step.

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