insert_part_from_library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior (message plus screenshot) and the token-saving rationale for include_screenshot=False. However, it does not explicitly state side effects on the current document, failure conditions beyond a generic message, or path-resolution context.

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 well-structured with a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds useful information, and the guidance about saving tokens is valuable without being verbose.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: path, screenshot toggle, view selection, and return value. It could be more complete by clarifying what 'insert' modifies and where relative_path resolves, but it is otherwise adequate for an agent to invoke the tool.

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 compensate. It explains all three parameters, including defaults and usage guidance for include_screenshot and view_name. The main gap is relative_path: it says 'relative path' but does not specify relative to what directory or library 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 description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Insert a part from the parts library addon.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_object or edit_object, and the tool name reinforces the library-source scope.

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 gives clear context for the tool's main use and provides practical guidance for include_screenshot and view_name. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as create_object, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.

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