blender_set_setting

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation but not necessarily destructive. The description adds that it reports old and new values, which is helpful for agents to verify success. It also explains the design rationale (one setting per call) which is behavioral context not in 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: the first defines the action and output; the second explains the deliberate design. Both are necessary and no word is wasted. The key design constraint is front-loaded.

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 the schema covers all parameters and the description explains the tool's design and output, the description is complete for a single-setting setter. It doesn't mention error handling or examples, but those are not essential given the simplicity. The tool's complexity is low, so this level is adequate.

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%, so the schema already documents parameters like path and group. The description adds the concept of 'dotted path' and that the value is for a single setting, reinforcing the schema. It also notes the response reports old/new values, which implies the response_format parameter's purpose, though the schema already describes that. This adds value but not a lot because the schema is sufficient.

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 ('Change'), a resource ('any single project setting'), and the mechanism ('by dotted path'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like blender_set_render_settings, which likely sets multiple render settings, whereas this tool does exactly one setting per call. The one-per-call design is explicitly stated.

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 explains why one setting per call (to avoid 'silently wreck a whole configuration' from a wrong path), implying when to use this tool (single setting change) and indirectly when not to (bulk changes should be done differently, e.g., via blender_set_render_settings). It provides clear rationale that helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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