blender_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the critical destructive side effect: it replaces the current scene and loses unsaved changes. However, it omits other behavioral details such as whether Blender must already be running, what happens on failure, or what the tool returns.

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, front-loaded sentence that delivers the purpose and the most important caveat without any 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?

For a simple one-parameter open operation, the description covers the essential purpose and destructive side effect, but it leaves the parameter semantics unaddressed and provides no usage context relative to sibling tools. With no annotations and no schema descriptions, more detail would be expected for full completeness.

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 0% and the description never mentions the required 'path' parameter or its expected format. The description adds no meaning beyond the bare schema, leaving a clear gap for a non-obvious input.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Open a .blend'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like blender_new_scene or blender_import_glb, though it does not name any alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as blender_new_scene or blender_import_glb. The parenthetical warns about the destructive effect, but that is behavioral context rather than usage direction.

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