asset.library

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

The description mentions only 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' which are opaque classifications, not behavioral traits. The annotations provide no readOnly/destructive/idempotent signals, so the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, but it offers none.

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?

It is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every phrase is generic and carries no functional content, so the sentence does not earn its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is far too minimal. It never explains the operation, what the arguments mean, or what output is returned, leaving the agent to guess from the schema and sibling names.

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 only 38% and the core parameters (dataType, names, path, link) are undocumented. The description adds no meaning to any parameter, which is especially costly for a tool with nested objects and required fields.

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 only restates the command name `asset.library` with no concrete action or resource. It does nothing to distinguish this tool from sibling asset tools like blender_asset_import_file or blender_asset_pack_resources.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only note about 'Per-request argument checks and session policy' is generic and does not help an agent choose between asset-related commands.

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