link_blend_data

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the key behavioral distinction between linked and appended data, and it lists valid values for data_type. It does not describe failure modes or return behavior, but the most important side-effect semantics are included.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact argument list with no filler. Every line adds useful information and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

All parameters are covered and the link-versus-append behavior is clear, so an agent can invoke the tool correctly. However, since there is no output schema, the description could be more complete by noting what the operation returns and how missing files or name conflicts are handled.

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%, yet the description documents all four parameters: filepath, data_type with allowed values, names, and the link boolean semantics. This fully compensates for the schema's missing descriptions and adds meaning beyond the raw JSON types.

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 opens with a specific verb plus resource: 'Link or append data from an external .blend file.' It also enumerates the supported data types, which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like merge_blend_file or import_file.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (external .blend data) and explains the two operational modes: linked data updates with source, appended data is an independent copy. It does not explicitly name alternative siblings or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of a 5.

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