asset.library

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

Annotations are all false/absent, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3' but never describes side effects, whether assets are added, linked, modified, or destroyed, or how this interacts with the Blender scene.

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 text is short, but brevity is not earned because the sentences only restate identity and generic policy rather than useful semantics. It is under-specified rather than well-structured.

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, 4 required, transaction-related fields, and a large sibling family, this description is far too thin. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing operational context about how to invoke and use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is only 38% and the description provides zero parameter explanation. It does not clarify what `dataType`, `names`, `path`, or `link` mean, nor how they relate to the asset library operation.

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 merely restates the command name (`asset.library`) and adds risk/maturity metadata; it never states what the tool does. There is no verb, resource, or effect, and no differentiation from the many `blender_asset_*` sibling tools.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like blender_asset_import_file, blender_asset_fetch_url, or blender_asset_polypizza_download. The line about per-request checks and session policy is a generic prerequisite, not usage direction.

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