blender_render_still

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals the transport model and engine choices, but omits key operational facts: that rendering writes/overwrites a file at output_path, whether headless requires blend_file to exist, and that this is a blocking or job-producing operation. Useful but incomplete for a no-annotation mutation tool.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the transport fork follows. Tight and appropriately sized, though it could be organized to state the mode-selection rule even more prominently.

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 values need not be described. However, with 7 undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description should say more about side effects (file writing), factory_startup, and headless prerequisites. It is adequate for the main path only.

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 and it partially does, naming output_path, resolution, engine, transport, and blend_file. It even adds engine value examples (BLENDER_EEVEE, CYCLES) the schema lacks, but it ignores factory_startup entirely and gives no format/default detail for the others.

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 ('Render the current scene as a still image'), and the word 'still' implicitly separates it from the sibling blender_render_animation. An agent can distinguish it from the other render/export siblings without opening any 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 between the two transport modes: bridge for the live add-on session, headless with blend_file for a separate background process. That is real when-to-use guidance for a key fork. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or how it relates to blender_render_animation.

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