Create a blank image for use as a bake target or texture placeholder in Blender.
Create a blank generated image, for example as a bake target.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| alpha | No | ||
| color | No | [r, g, b] or [r, g, b, a], each 0..1 (linear) | |
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| colorspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that a blank image is created but does not explain side effects, whether the image is registered in the scene's image list, persistence, defaults, or any constraints around 'generated.' This is a meaningful gap for a creation tool.
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 with no filler: it gives the verb, object, and a purpose example efficiently. It is appropriately concise, though the content is sparse; that sparsity is penalized in other dimensions rather than here.
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?
With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin for correct invocation. It omits how the created image is returned or referenced, what defaults apply beyond the schema, and what nullable fields like height and colorspace mean. The high-level purpose alone is not 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?
Schema description coverage is only 17%, and the description names none of the six parameters. It adds no meaning beyond 'blank image,' leaving the agent without guidance on name, alpha, color format, width/height bounds, or colorspace values.
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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Create a blank generated image' with a concrete example ('as a bake target'). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like load_image or create_image_texture_node, so it falls just short of full differentiation.
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 phrase 'for example as a bake target' implies a use case, suggesting when creating a blank image is appropriate. However, the description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternative image-related tools, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.