blender_reference_image_setup

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the image is a 'background empty' used as a viewport overlay, implying it is not a normal rendered object. However, it does not mention scene side effects, whether repeated calls stack or replace empties, or file-existence requirements.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and each remaining phrase adds meaningful context about the tool's purpose and behavior.

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 five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the core operation and purpose but omits operational context such as whether multiple calls create multiple empties, how the image path is resolved, and how this tool relates to referencing/calibration workflows. The schema covers the parameters, but the description is not fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters, including the axis enum, defaults, and value ranges. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, keeping this at the baseline score.

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 ('Load a reference image') and a concrete resource/role ('background empty for modeling viewport overlay'), with a purpose clause ('for tracing geometry'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like blender_ai_generate_reference_image and blender_calibrate_from_reference, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 context for use is implied through phrases like 'modeling viewport overlay' and 'for tracing geometry', but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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