blender_jobs

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 mentions asynchronous execution, immediate job_id return for submit, and the ability to cancel, but it does not describe persistence, error handling, side effects of cancelling, or whether jobs survive a restart. This leaves significant gaps for safe invocation.

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 extremely concise: a single opening line defining the tool's purpose, followed by a bulleted list of operations. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded, making it easy to scan. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, multiple operations, and the presence of an output schema), the description provides a high-level overview but lacks details on parameter usage, output format, and error scenarios. It is adequate for a first glance but not fully complete for safe invocation without further exploration.

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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the description does not detail them. While the description hints at job_id and script usage in the operations list, it fails to explain the meaning of parameters like timeout, prefer_session, and limit, or how they affect behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Async job queue for long-running Blender Python scripts' and lists four operations (submit, status, list, cancel) with clear actions and return behavior. This distinguishes it from other Blender tools like script_execute or blender_render, which handle immediate execution or rendering, not async job management.

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 when to use each operation (e.g., submit for long scripts, status to check progress), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as blender_render (which might handle renders synchronously). The usage context is clear but lacks exclusion criteria.

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