insert_part_from_library

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions success/failure and a screenshot return, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with no wasted sentences, though the parameter explanation could be more detailed given the low schema coverage.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values, and it covers basic purpose and parameters. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete parameter semantics, it lacks sufficient context for safe and effective use, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only states 'The relative path of the part to insert' without explaining path format, examples, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's title and type, failing to address the coverage gap adequately.

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 the action ('insert a part') and the source ('from the parts library addon'), which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like create_object or get_parts_list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like create_object in terms of scope or resource type.

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 such as create_object or get_parts_list. The description mentions the parts library addon but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual cues for selection among siblings.

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