asset.make_paths_relative

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond what annotations already indicate. Annotations mark the tool as non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent, but the description does not clarify what side effects occur, whether it modifies asset paths in the scene, or any other behavioral consequences. The risk and maturity notes are not behavioral.

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 extremely sparse, with only a mention of the command name, risk, maturity, and generic requirements. It is not front-loaded with useful information; the first sentence is just the command name, which is redundant with the tool name. It lacks substance and structure, making it under-specified rather than concise.

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 is inadequate for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It does not explain what the command does, what inputs are meaningful, or what the expected outcome is. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide essential context about the operation's purpose and behavior, making it incomplete.

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 description mentions no parameters and adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 75% (three of four parameters have descriptions), but the description provides no additional context about how parameters relate to the operation. It does not compensate for the missing description of _expectedSceneRevision or clarify the purpose of any parameter.

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 states it is a PartMe Blender Harness command and names the command as `asset.make_paths_relative`. It does not explain what the command does, such as converting absolute paths to relative ones. The purpose is vague and relies entirely on the name, which is insufficient for an agent to understand its function.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions per-request argument checks and session policy, but these are generic requirements, not usage instructions. There is no context about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or when to prefer this over similar asset tools like blender_asset_import_file or blender_asset_pack_resources.

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