Call Blender Tool Batch

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context — execution is ordered, bounded, and runs in one persistent session against 'approved' commands — but it says nothing about error handling (the stopOnError parameter is never mentioned), whether side effects from earlier commands persist after a failure, or what the call returns. Those are material gaps for a tool that mutates a scene.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core operation is front-loaded and the usage constraint follows immediately. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the title.

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 and no annotations, and the description does not cover return values, per-command results, or failure behavior. For a batch execution tool with an undocumented stopOnError flag, the definition is too thin to let an agent invoke it confidently in error-sensitive situations.

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 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. 'Ordered bounded' hints at array ordering and the 32-item cap, but stopOnError is never explained and the name/params shape of each command entry is left entirely to the schema. An agent gets no guidance on what the second parameter actually does.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Run an ordered bounded sequence of approved ViperMesh Blender commands through one persistent session.' The notions of ordering, boundedness and a single persistent session separate it from a single-command tool. It stops short of naming call_blender_tool as the non-batch counterpart, so the sibling distinction is implied rather than 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?

'Use only when intermediate observations are not needed to choose the next command' is a genuine selection criterion that tells the agent when this tool is appropriate and, by implication, when the single-command sibling is. There is no explicit exclusion for error-sensitive sequences or a named alternative, which keeps it below a 5.

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