blender_execute_script

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose arbitrary execution, full API access, and the 'result' variable return contract, but it never warns about potential destructive or irreversible scene changes, undo behavior, or failure/error handling, which are important for an arbitrary-code-execution tool.

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 three tight sentences with no filler: scope first, then capability, then the return contract. Every sentence earns its place and the most important information 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?

For a high-complexity arbitrary-script tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the basic call contract and return mechanism. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized siblings and does not explain what happens on script error or timeout, which are meaningful gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful context about importable modules and setting a 'result' variable, but it does not meaningfully expand on timeout semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Execute arbitrary Python/bmesh script in Blender's context.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many specialized mesh/object/modifier siblings by emphasizing arbitrary script execution and full Blender API access.

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 word 'arbitrary' implies this is the general-purpose fallback, and the mention of real mesh modeling hints at when it could be useful. However, it never explicitly says to prefer specialized tools like blender_mesh_extrude or blender_object_create for routine operations, nor does it describe when not 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.