Blender scene import

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

Annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds specific behavioral context: it creates a scaffold with listed components, uses a fallback primitive when no path is given, and warns when a .blend may need export. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with purpose, listing components and supported formats without redundancy. No 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 params, no output schema), the description explains the scaffold, fallback behavior, and format support, and includes a warning about .blend export. It doesn't need to detail return values since there is no output schema. It leaves some ambiguity about how the scaffold integrates with the existing network, but openWorldHint and the reference to parent_path in schema cover that.

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?

All 11 parameters have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The tool description doesn't elaborate on individual parameters but provides broader context about formats and fallback, which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action ('Create a self-contained TouchDesigner render scaffold') with a defined scope (Blender scene or Blender-exported asset) and enumerates the produced components (File In SOP, Geometry COMP, PBR material, lights, Camera, Render TOP, Null TOP). It distinguishes itself from generic import/model tools by focusing on Blender-specific assets and including a warning about .blend export.

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 implies usage context: it is for Blender scenes/exported assets and creates a full render scaffold. It mentions supported formats and warns about potential need to export .blend first, which acts as a prerequisite. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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