Insert a named undo checkpoint in Blender to allow stepping back to a specific state during asset creation.
Insert a named undo checkpoint so the user can step back to here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | Name for this undo step | AI Bridge |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only states what the tool does (inserts a checkpoint) but does not mention side effects, whether it modifies the scene, if it is reversible, or any safety considerations. For a tool that alters undo state, this is a significant gap.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. It contains no unnecessary words and conveys the essential information efficiently.
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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic function but omits contextual details such as how many checkpoints can exist, whether existing checkpoints are affected, or whether the operation is non-destructive. It is adequate but leaves room for more guidance.
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%, so the label parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's reference to 'named' aligns with the schema but adds no new detail about parameter usage or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 (insert) and the resource (named undo checkpoint), and implies the purpose (stepping back to this point). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like undo/redo and restore_checkpoint by focusing on creating a checkpoint rather than performing or reverting an undo action.
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 usage (create a checkpoint to allow stepping back) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like undo/redo or restore_checkpoint. There is no guidance on prerequisites, timing, or exclusion scenarios, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.