Blender scene import

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive. The description adds value by disclosing that it warns when a .blend may need export from Blender first, and that it falls back to a primitive if no scene_path is provided. These behaviors go beyond what annotations convey, though it does not detail side effects like potential node creation at parent_path or any prerequisites beyond file format support.

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 two sentences, each earning its place. The first front-loads the purpose and component list; the second concisely covers formats and the warning behavior. No redundant phrases or filler, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 tool is complex (11 parameters, no output schema), yet the description covers the main deliverable (render scaffold), supported formats, and a behavioral warning. It does not explicitly state what the tool returns (e.g., the container path), but given the rich schema and annotations, the description is reasonably complete. Missing explicit output/return information is a minor gap in an otherwise thorough description.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description does not add additional parameter-level semantics; it mentions supported file formats which maps to scene_path, but the schema already lists the same formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full burden and the description does not enhance it.

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 with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('self-contained TouchDesigner render scaffold for a Blender scene or Blender-exported asset'). It enumerates the major components (File In SOP, Geometry COMP, PBR material, lights, Camera, Render TOP, Null TOP) which distinguishes it from simple model import tools like 'import_model'. The supported file formats and caveat about .blend export further clarify its scope.

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 provides clear context: use this when you need a full render scaffold for Blender scenes or exported assets. It implies the scenario (importing Blender geometry into TouchDesigner for rendering) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'import_model' or 'create_3d_scene'. There are no exclusions or 'when not to use' notes, but the context is unambiguous enough to guide selection.

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