blender_simulate

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds useful conceptual context about bake converting live simulation to keyframes, but it does not disclose reset side effects, requirements, or what responses look like.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The operations are front-loaded, and the explanatory bake note earns its place by clarifying the tool's practical purpose.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description does not explain return values or the role of 'response_format'. It also omits side effects of reset and the meaning of frame-related parameters, leaving important behavioral gaps for an agent invoking this tool.

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 only 60%, and 'frames'/'frame_start' have no descriptions in either the schema or the tool description. The description mostly restates the 'op' enum values without explaining how 'frames', 'frame_start', 'objects', or 'response_format' affect behavior.

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 names three concrete operations (step, bake, reset) and a specific resource (physics simulation, point cache). It also explains the purpose of baking, making the tool's domain unambiguous even among many siblings.

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 gives clear context for when baking is appropriate: 'Bake is how a cloth or soft-body result becomes a usable animation rather than a live simulation.' It implies step is for live simulation and reset for clearing the cache, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions.

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