Generate rising plumes for chimneys, smoldering debris, or fog columns. Simulate the effect from natural language instructions in Blender.
Rising smoke without fire (chimney, smouldering debris, fog column). 피어오르는 연기. 인자는 fire 와 같다.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| at | No | ||
| noise | No | ||
| power | No | ||
| frames | No | ||
| radius | No | ||
| target | No | ||
| density | No | ||
| dissolve | No | ||
| end_frame | No | ||
| vorticity | No | ||
| resolution | No | ||
| start_frame | No | ||
| preview_frames | No | ||
| smoke_collision | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the visual output and notes that arguments match fire, but it does not explain side effects, scene mutation, cleanup behavior, or any operational constraints beyond the effect itself.
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 compact and front-loads the core meaning in English, followed by examples and a useful cross-reference. The Korean sentence partly duplicates the English clause, but the extra parameter note is valuable and the overall size is appropriate.
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 14 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It gives purpose and examples but leaves parameter semantics, expected effects, and behavioral details to be inferred or looked up elsewhere. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional information.
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. The only parameter guidance is 'arguments are same as fire', which is not self-contained and forces the agent to consult another tool's schema. None of the 14 parameters are individually explained.
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 identifies the tool as producing 'rising smoke without fire' and gives concrete examples (chimney, smouldering debris, fog column), which distinguishes it from the sibling fire tool. It lacks a strong imperative verb, but the intent is unmistakable.
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 examples and the explicit 'without fire' qualifier give clear usage context for typical smoke-only scenarios. It does not state when not to use alternatives or name sibling tools directly, but the scenarios are specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.