blender_install_package

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it states that packages are installed into a project-local directory and never into bundled site-packages, and that the operation is refused without confirm=true. It does not disclose other side effects like network access or failure modes, but the confirmation requirement and isolation guarantee are meaningful beyond the annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then adding the isolation rationale and the confirmation requirement. Every sentence contributes information without redundancy. The structure is logical and efficient.

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?

The tool has five parameters and no output schema, but the response_format parameter covers output expectations. The description covers the essential behavior: local installation, isolation, and confirmation requirement. It omits details like timeout semantics or error handling, but those are not critical for a basic call. For a package installation tool, this is reasonably complete, though not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 60%, with confirm, package, and response_format already described. The description adds a note about confirm being required, reinforcing the schema. However, no_deps and timeout lack descriptions in both the schema and description, and the description does not elaborate on them. It provides minimal added value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'pip install a package into a project-local directory.' It clearly distinguishes this from addon management or environment setup tools by focusing on pip packages and explicitly noting isolation from Blender's bundled site-packages. This is not a tautology and provides a clear purpose.

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 does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_python_env or blender_manage_addon. It implies usage for pip packages but offers no explicit guidance on selection criteria, exclusions, or when another tool would be preferable. No sibling comparison or conditions are provided.

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