manage_external_paths

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that MAKE_* rewrites paths, that the .blend must be saved afterwards, that relative paths survive folder moves, and that FIND_MISSING only searches the given folder. It doesn't say what happens to files that remain missing after relinking or whether the rewrite is reversible.

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?

A front-loaded one-sentence summary followed by per-argument notes; every sentence adds information. The circular parenthetical about relative paths is slightly verbose but defensible because it justifies the action's existence.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, all four action modes, parameter scoping, the save prerequisite, and a summary of the return dict (type, name, path, exists, missing count). Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters, and it does: the action enum values are spelled out with their effects, and directory is scoped to FIND_MISSING only, described as absolute and recursive. That is substantive meaning the bare schema lacks, though it doesn't clarify whether directory may be a subfolder of the project or must be an external root.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: check and fix external files (textures, sounds, libraries) that a .blend uses. Each of the four actions is then named with its distinct effect, so an agent can tell LIST, MAKE_RELATIVE/MAKE_ABSOLUTE, and FIND_MISSING apart 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?

The action list effectively says which mode to use for which goal: inspect, rewrite, or recover moved files. However, it never names alternatives such as pack_resources or link_or_append, which are the obvious siblings for the same problem, and it states no exclusions.

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