blender_jobs

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

Description discloses async behavior ('returns job_id immediately'), cancel semantics, and the standard return format (success, message, data). This adds meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it omits details like error handling or whether cancel truly kills remote jobs.

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?

Well-organized with a brief summary, bulleted operations, return format, and a single example. Every section serves a purpose and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

Covers the core use case, operations, return format, and a practical example, making the tool largely self-contained. The few undocumented parameters prevent a perfect score, but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke 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?

The operations list and example clarify the 'operation' and 'script' parameters, but the remaining parameters (limit, job_id, timeout, script_name, prefer_session) are not explained. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description only partially compensates for the lack of structured documentation.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Async job queue for long-running Blender Python scripts' and lists the four operations (submit, status, list, cancel), making its purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from synchronous script execution and other Blender-specific siblings.

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 'long-running' qualifier and examples (renders, bakes, sims) indicate when to use this queueing tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like script_execute or state when not to use it, leaving the exclusion guidance implicit.

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