execute_script_on_file

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states headless mode, opens file, runs code, optionally saves. This is transparent about the core workflow. However, it lacks details on error conditions, timeout behavior (though a timeout parameter exists), or what happens if the file is missing. It provides moderate transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no extraneous words. Essential information is front-loaded. It earns its space efficiently.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain that the code is Python, the required file path format, or that the script runs in Blender's Python environment. For a batch modification tool, more context is needed for effective use.

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 should compensate. It only mentions the code and save parameters implicitly ('optionally saves'). The blend_file parameter is not described, and timeout is not mentioned at all. The description adds very little to the schema, leaving the agent to guess parameter meaning and format.

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 executes Python code on an existing .blend file in headless mode. It specifies the action (execute, open, run, optionally save) and the resource (existing .blend file), which distinguishes it from siblings like `execute_code` that likely run on the current scene. However, the distinction could be sharper.

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 says 'Great for batch modifications to existing files', providing a usage context. But it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., when you need a visual interface) or mention alternative tools like `execute_code` for scripts without a file. The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.

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