blender_run_script

Does 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 states 'background mode' but does not disclose potential side effects, output handling, error behavior, timeout implications, or whether the script execution is blocking. This is insufficient for a tool that runs arbitrary scripts and could have significant side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core functionality without any wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how output is returned, the meaning of timeoutMs, cwd, blenderPath, or outputTailChars, nor does it mention any constraints or side effects. The description provides only a surface-level understanding, which is inadequate for a tool with this complexity.

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. It only mentions 'explicit Python script' and 'optional script arguments', which loosely map to scriptPath and scriptArgs, but it completely omits cwd, timeoutMs, blenderPath, and outputTailChars. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names and fails to explain the purpose of most parameters.

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 runs Blender in background mode with an explicit Python script and optional script arguments. It specifies the action (run), the resource (Blender), and the mode (background), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like blender_locate (locating Blender) and blender_verify_fbx_reimport (verifying FBX reimport).

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 implies its usage by saying 'Run Blender in background mode with an explicit Python script', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions for use, so it remains implied rather than explicitly guided.

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