load_file

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the exact destructive effect ('replaces the current scene') and the need for confirmation ('confirm to proceed'). This adds significant behavioral context that helps the agent understand the consequences, exceeding what annotations alone provide.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by a succinct warning. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. It is optimally concise while conveying the essential information.

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?

For a simple destructive load operation, the description covers the action, the destructive consequence, and the confirmation gate. The presence of an output schema covers return values. Given the tool's modest complexity and the supporting annotations, the description is complete enough without further elaboration.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for the 'confirm' parameter by explaining its role in proceeding with the destructive action, but it provides no additional detail for 'filepath' beyond the implicit path concept from the action. This is partial compensation but leaves filepath semantics to the parameter name.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Load a .blend file.' It distinguishes from siblings like import_file and save_file by specifying the .blend format and action. This is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 clear context that loading replaces the current scene, implying a destructive operation. It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is sufficient for most agents to decide when to use it. The alternative tools (import_file, save_file) are not contrasted, but the .blend-specific phrasing naturally differentiates them.

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