blender_open_blend

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: opening a file discards the current scene and users should save first. This goes beyond the annotation and tells the agent exactly what will be lost and what precaution to take.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It communicates the action, the risk, and the mitigation in two sentences with no filler.

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 a simple, destructive open-file operation, the description covers the key behavior and the critical warning. It does not describe the return/response format, but annotations plus the response_format parameter already provide enough guidance for 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?

The required 'path' parameter has no schema description, and while the tool description implies it should be a .blend file path, it does not explicitly document that. The optional 'response_format' parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description adds only minimal meaning for the primary parameter.

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: 'Open a .blend file.' It also states the consequence ('discarding the current scene'), which clearly distinguishes this from related tools like blender_save_blend and blender_new_file. An agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 instruction 'Save first' gives a clear precondition and warns about the destructive effect before calling. It provides useful context for when to use this tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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