load_blend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses the destructive action (replacing the scene) and the loss of unsaved changes. However, it does not mention file existence requirements or loading dependencies, but for a simple load operation this is acceptable.

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 concise: two sentences plus a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose and warning, with no unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers essential behavior (opening a file, replacing scene, warning about unsaved changes). It could mention that Blender must be running, but that is likely implicit. Overall, it is complete enough.

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 0% coverage (no descriptions), so the description must compensate. It provides 'filepath: Absolute path to the .blend file to open', adding meaning (absolute path, file type) beyond the schema's title and type.

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 'Open a .blend file, replacing the current Blender scene.' It specifies the verb 'open' and the resource '.blend file', and distinguishes from siblings like import_file by noting the replacement behavior.

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 includes a warning about unsaved changes being lost and advises to save first, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternative tools like import_file for adding assets without replacement.

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