comfy_send_to_blender

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the save is atomic and includes a sidecar manifest, and that prompt_id enriches manifest metadata—useful behavioral context beyond the structured fields. It doesn't mention overwrite behavior or destination paths, but the core side effects are disclosed.

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 efficient: a one-sentence summary followed by a concise Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No redundant or filler content.

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?

The description covers the core functionality, parameters, and the key sidecar manifest detail. An output schema exists, so return values are already structured. Some destination specifics ('for Blender consumption') are vague, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for any of the three parameters (0% coverage). The description's Args section explains each parameter clearly: filename is 'the image filename in ComfyUI outputs', subfolder is 'optional subfolder in ComfyUI outputs', and prompt_id 'enriches the manifest with history metadata'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states the tool's function: 'Download image and save for Blender consumption atomically with sidecar manifest.' This uses specific verbs ('download', 'save') and specifies the resource (image) and destination (Blender), distinguishing it from sibling tools like comfy_send_to_disk or comfy_send_to_td.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like comfy_send_to_disk or comfy_send_to_td. It implies usage by mentioning Blender consumption and the sidecar manifest, but no explicit exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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