prepare_blender_handoff

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: it prepares a script rather than running the editor, references a 'trusted' script and verified BVH, and clarifies that no editor action occurs.

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 short and front-loads the main action. The conditional guidance is presented efficiently, with no filler, though the line breaks make it slightly less polished.

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, for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, omitting job_id and sample_index leaves meaningful gaps in what the agent needs to call it 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for four parameters. It explains export_id and partially explains attempt, but never mentions the required job_id or sample_index, leaving core parameter semantics unclear.

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 states a specific verb and resource: prepare a Blender script that imports a SOMA BVH and saves .blend/FBX. It differentiates itself from execution-oriented siblings by saying 'No editor action runs', though it does not name a sibling tool explicitly.

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?

It gives clear conditional guidance: omit export_id to use the manifest BVH, or provide the exact ID from export_motion to use a verified derived BVH, and use a new attempt when changing source. It does not explicitly contrast this with execute_blender_handoff, but the usage context is unusually clear.

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