blender_run_python

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: headless execution, use of mcp_args and mcp_result, export to Unity directory. It doesn't contradict annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). However, it could mention that scripts can be arbitrary and potentially destructive.

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 relatively concise with a code example, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence adds value. No unnecessary repetition.

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?

Given no output schema and complexity, the description covers key aspects: script execution, argument passing, return via mcp_result, export path. It lacks details on timeout meaning and error handling, but is sufficient for an AI agent to form a correct invocation.

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 has zero description coverage; the description compensates by explaining that 'args' are passed after '--' via mcp_args, and provides an example using mcp_args[0]. However, 'timeout' is not explained. The description adds meaning beyond the schema but incompletely.

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 it runs a bpy-Python script headless in Blender to create 3D assets for Unity, listing capabilities (Mesh, Material, UV, Bake, Export GLB/FBX, Render). It distinguishes from sibling tools like blender_bake_pbr by being the generic script runner.

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 provides example usage and export guidance (to Assets/), but lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. It implies it's the primitive for 3D creation, but does not specify scenarios where other Blender tools are preferred.

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