Blender Run Python

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Execute arbitrary Python code' but does not disclose key traits such as whether code runs with full Blender API access, potential side effects on scene state, or error handling behavior. This lack of transparency is critical for a tool that can alter the environment arbitrarily.

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 a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. However, the extreme brevity comes at the cost of missing essential behavioral details and usage guidance. It is not overly verbose, but conciseness should not sacrifice completeness for a potentially dangerous tool.

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 high complexity as an arbitrary code executor, the description is incomplete. No output schema exists, and there is no explanation of return values, error handling, or default behavior. For such a powerful tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema: 'code' is Python code to execute, 'timeoutMs' is command timeout. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work; the description merely restates.

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 action ('Execute arbitrary Python code') and the environment ('Blender's Python environment via bpy'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like 'unreal_run_python' and other Blender tools by specifying the context. While straightforward, it could be slightly more specific about the scope (e.g., entire scene access).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'blender_get_object' or 'blender_set_transform'. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios where this tool is preferred, or warnings about potential side effects. Users are left to infer usage from context alone.

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