unpack_resources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does well: it discloses the write location policy, the saved-file prerequisite, and the overwrite default (existing file reused rather than replaced), which is the key destructive-behavior question for this tool. It stops short of saying what happens when the .blend is unsaved (error vs. no-op) or whether the mapping is one-way/irreversible.

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 location rule and the safety constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with parameters and returns following in a scannable Args/Returns layout. Nothing is padded; every sentence constrains agent behavior.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the write target policy, and the flag semantics, so an agent can call it correctly. The only real gap is failure behavior when the .blend is unsaved, which is not described.

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% and the single boolean parameter gets no schema text, but the description fully explains it: 'Replace files already there; by default an existing file is reused.' That is more than enough for a one-flag tool and resolves the only real ambiguity.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Write packed files out to folders next to the saved .blend'), so the agent knows the operation is unpacking. The inverse sibling pack_resources is never named, but the direction of the operation is unambiguous from the description itself.

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 an explicit precondition ('The .blend must be saved first') and an explicit non-behavior ('Files only ever go beside the .blend, never to paths stored in the file'), which is exactly the context an agent needs before calling. It does not, however, compare itself to pack_resources or manage_external_paths, so the choice between those siblings is left to inference.

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