blender_run_operator

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

The description says 'Run any bpy.ops operator', which includes potentially destructive operators, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The description does add useful context about viewport fallback and validation, but the contradiction with the annotation is a serious transparency failure.

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, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by a practical usage pointer. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant content.

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 tool that can run arbitrary operators, the description should warn about potentially destructive effects and clarify what the response looks like, especially since there is no output schema. It does provide the key prerequisite and context fallback, but the destructive contradiction and missing output/return guidance leave important gaps.

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 75%, with operator, properties, and response_format already documented. The description adds a hint about area_type through 'automatic 3D viewport context fallback' and mentions property-name validation, but it does not substantially expand on the parameter semantics 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 clearly states the tool runs any bpy.ops operator by name, with specific behavioral qualifiers like automatic 3D viewport context fallback and property-name validation. It is easy to distinguish from most sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with blender_execute_python, which could also run operators.

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 tells the agent to call blender_list_operators first if unsure of the exact id or property names, which is a clear and useful routing instruction. It does not provide when-not-to-use guidance, but for a generic operator runner the alternative guidance is sufficient.

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