compositor.add_file_output

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

Annotations provide no positive safety signals (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all false), so the description must disclose behavior, side effects, and scene mutations. It does none of this; 'Risk: standard' is too vague to inform an agent about actual consequences. No contradiction with annotations, but no meaningful behavioral transparency either.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The single sentence contains only command naming and boilerplate, none of which earns its place by helping an agent understand the tool. It is not egregiously long, but it is effectively content-free.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters, required fields, enums, and an output schema, the description provides no conceptual or operational context. An agent cannot determine what 'add_file_output' does, what scene state it requires, what it returns, or what side effects may occur. The description is inadequate for even basic tool selection.

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 33%, meaning most parameters like name, format, baseName, outputDir, and colorDepth lack semantic context in the schema. The description adds zero parameter information and does not compensate for this gap, leaving an agent with five required parameters and no explanation of how they relate to the 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 only restates the tool's name/title as a 'PartMe Blender Harness command' and adds generic risk/maturity boilerplate. It never states what the command actually does, such as adding a file output node to the compositor. This is essentially a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, what prerequisite state is required, or how it compares to sibling compositor tools like blender_compositor_configure or blender_compositor_create_strip_group. The 'Requirements' sentence refers only to generic session policy, not usage context.

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