render_preview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-read-only but non-destructive operation. The description adds that it writes a PNG to a project-relative path, which clarifies the output side effect. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior (despite allow_overwrite parameter) or any dependencies on scene state, leaving room for more transparency.

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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the core purpose, though the lack of additional details makes it slightly under-specifying for the tool's complexity, so it does not earn a 5.

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 tool with 5 parameters, 2 required, sparse annotations, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain when to use it relative to siblings, prerequisites like an open scene, or the purpose of parameters. The agent would need to guess from the schema, which lacks descriptions.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It only hints that output_path should be project-relative, but does not explain scene_path, max_width, max_height, or allow_overwrite. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no other parameter documentation.

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 'Render a PNG preview to a project-relative output path' clearly specifies the verb (render), the resource (PNG preview), and the destination (project-relative output path). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_blender_status and inspect_scene, which focus on status and inspection rather than rendering.

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 this tool is for generating preview images, while sibling tools handle status checking and scene inspection, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The requirement that output path be project-relative is a constraint but not a usage guideline versus alternatives.

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