blender_render

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a valuable performance warning (Cycles at 1080p can take minutes) that goes beyond what annotations convey. It doesn't mention what happens to existing render outputs or error handling, but the performance context is genuinely useful. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the performance warning is a single second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 render tool with 4 fully-documented parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it does, cost implications, and how to be smart about it. It doesn't address animation mode specifics (rendering many frames) or output path resolution details, but the schema covers those. A small gap remains around what happens with 'animation' mode performance, but overall this is quite complete.

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 100% — all 4 parameters (mode, format, output_path, response_format) have descriptive text in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('current engine'), and clarifies the output ('resulting image'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like blender_capture_viewport (viewport capture vs. full render) and blender_render_extras. Clear and unambiguous.

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 advises checking samples and resolution with blender_get_scene first and suggests the 'eevee' engine for iteration. This is concrete, actionable guidance that routes the agent to the right approach and warns about the cost of Cycles rendering.

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