Save named assert_spec check lists inside a Blender scene, preserved with the .blend, so you can rerun them after changes in this or later sessions.
Store a list of assert_spec checks under a name inside the scene (it is saved with the .blend). Rerun it with run_spec after every change, in this or a later session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| checks | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the checks are persisted inside the scene file and survive into later sessions. It does not disclose what happens on a name collision (overwrite vs. append), which would be the remaining useful detail.
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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the follow-up workflow note immediately after. 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?
With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description supplies the essential facts: what is stored, where, and how to reuse it. Minor gaps remain (collision/overwrite behavior, expected check object shape), but nothing critical to calling it correctly is missing.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It maps 'name' and 'checks' conceptually ('a list of assert_spec checks under a name'), but gives no structure or format hints for the opaque check objects the schema accepts. Partial compensation for a fully undescribed schema.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Store a list of assert_spec checks under a name inside the scene') and clarifies the persistent scope. It is immediately distinguishable from its nearest sibling run_spec, which executes rather than stores. An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to run_spec and states the workflow condition ('rerun it ... after every change, in this or a later session'), which explains why persistence matters. It lacks an explicit 'use this instead when...' framing or exclusion cases, but the when-to-use context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.