link_or_append

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that link creates a live read-only reference whose edits propagate from the source, that append copies, that linked collections become instances, and notably that scripts in the source file are never executed (an important safety note). It omits error behavior (missing file, unresolvable names) and any size/performance caveat.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the link/append tradeoff, then organized into Args/Returns blocks. The Returns block partially duplicates the existing output schema, which is the only wasted content; otherwise the prose is dense and purposeful.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers semantics, mode behavior, limits, and safety sufficiently for correct invocation. The redundant return-value paragraph and the absence of failure-mode notes are the remaining small gaps.

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%, so the description must carry all four parameters — and it does: filepath as an absolute path to an existing file, the six valid data_type values, the 100-name cap plus the tool to resolve names, and link=True meaning link rather than append. This fully compensates for the empty schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — bringing data blocks in from another .blend file — and immediately disambiguates the two modes (append = editable copy, link = read-only live reference). An agent can distinguish this from open_file or import_file without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes name discovery to the sibling list_blend_contents (a required prerequisite for the `names` parameter) and gives the decision rule between link and append, including the collection-instancing case. It stops short of stating when *not* to use this tool (e.g. same-file operations), but the context is clear.

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