blender_python_exec_async

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses immediate job_id return, main-thread blocking on the default bridge transport, the __cancel_event__.is_set() cancellation hook, and the headless alternative. This is rich behavioral context beyond a bare signature.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and lifecycle, then usage guidance and the transport caveat. Every sentence adds a distinct fact; 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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained, and the description still states that a job_id is returned immediately. Lifecycle, cancellation, and the blocking/headless tradeoff are all covered, which is what an agent needs to call this safely and correctly.

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% and there are 7 parameters, so the description must compensate. It documents the transport enum values and the practical effect of each ('bridge' blocks the UI, 'headless' runs a separate background process), and delegates the shared arguments to blender_python_exec. The only gap is that the shared parameters are not restated, which the explicit delegation largely covers.

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?

Specific verb and resource ('Start a long-running Python script in Blender asynchronously') with the key differentiator against the synchronous sibling blender_python_exec stated up front. An agent can distinguish it from blender_python_exec and the job-management tools from the description alone.

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 names the polling and abort siblings (blender_job_status, blender_job_cancel) and gives concrete use cases (fluid baking, rigid body simulation, heavy scene generation). It also states the transport tradeoff and routes to transport='headless' for a non-blocking path.

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