blender_script

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does add real context: hidden background process, normal user permissions (explicitly not a sandbox), workspace confinement, and the sys.argv contract. However, it omits failure behavior, timeouts, and whether blend_file/environment state is mutated, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the safety and argv constraints. Nothing is repeated from structured fields and each sentence conveys a constraint. It is slightly terse given the tool's complexity but not padded.

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 that executes arbitrary local scripts with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers safety posture and the argv contract but leaves return values, error behavior, and two of three parameters unexplained. It is adequate but with clear gaps an agent would want filled.

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 all 3 parameters, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It clarifies 'workspace' (script must be inside it, and its path is passed via sys.argv after --), but the 'script' and 'blend_file' parameters are never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving two of three undocumented.

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 states a specific verb and resource: running a trusted local Blender Python script in a hidden background process. That is unambiguous and an agent can tell what the tool executes. It does not name or contrast with any sibling, but none of the siblings (pipeline_run, view_artifact, etc.) appear to overlap with script execution, so differentiation is implicit rather than necessary.

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 the usage context ('trusted local Blender Python script', 'script must be inside workspace') and gives an authoring rule ('derivative paths; never overwrite the source'), but never says when to reach for this tool versus pipeline_run or the other siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated, which is the definition of a 3.

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