blender_append_node_group

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

The description does not disclose behavioral details beyond what annotations already state. It doesn't mention side effects on the current scene, potential overwrites, or the effect of the 'names' parameter when omitted. With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, some mutating behavior is implied, but the description adds no specific behavioral 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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the action and resource, and succinctly states the purpose. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core operation but leaves out important context such as how the append integrates with the current scene, what happens when 'names' is null (append all?), and whether the operation is additive or can conflict with existing node groups. Given the mutating nature and the lack of an output schema, more detail would help an agent execute correctly.

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?

The schema already documents names, response_format, and assign_to_material with descriptions. The description adds value by implying the 'path' parameter refers to a .blend file, which is not stated in the schema. However, it doesn't elaborate on the interaction between parameters, such as how 'assign_to_material' works. Overall, it provides marginal additional meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action (append), the resource (shader or geometry node groups), and the source (another .blend file). It also gives the purpose (reuse existing shader library). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like import_asset, but the specificity of 'node groups' and 'from another .blend file' makes the intent clear.

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 provides a general use case ('reuse an existing shader library instead of rebuilding graphs by hand'), but it doesn't compare with alternative tools or specify when not to use it. It implies a scenario but lacks explicit guidance on choosing this over sibling asset tools.

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