blender_undo

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety context, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: the undo stack semantics, the refusal to rewind across an Open File, and the critical warning that attempting this crashes Blender rather than raising an error. This is valuable beyond the structured 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence adds practical pairing guidance, and the third explains a critical edge case. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

The description covers the core operation, the companion tool, and the dangerous edge case involving Open File. There is no output schema, but the description does not need to explain return values for an undo operation. It could mention behavior when the undo stack is empty, but that is a minor omission given the strong context provided.

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 only parameter, response_format, is fully documented in the schema with an enum and description, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable because the schema already fully explains the 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 clearly states the action ('Undo the last change pushed onto Blender's undo stack') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools by referencing blender_checkpoint and explaining its relationship to the undo stack, making its role 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?

It explicitly instructs pairing with blender_checkpoint to make a step reversible, which is a clear usage pattern. It also warns against use across an Open File, providing a concrete limitation. It does not explicitly contrast with blender_redo, but the name and description make the distinction obvious.

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