insert_part_from_library

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns a screenshot by default, and provides advice to set include_screenshot=False to save tokens for intermediate steps, which is useful behavioral context. It also clarifies the view_name parameter for selecting the best view. However, it does not explicitly mention that inserting a part modifies the current document, though this is strongly implied by 'insert'.

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 concise and well-structured using an Args/Returns format. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence and each parameter description earns its place by adding useful guidance. There is no wasted text or repetition.

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 no annotations or output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively: the action, all parameter details, return format, and practical tips on token usage and view selection. It is complete for a relatively simple insertion tool.

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 fully explain the parameters. It does exactly that: relative_path is 'the relative path of the part to insert,' include_screenshot is explained with a concrete cost-saving rationale, and view_name is described with orientation defaults and guidance on choosing the best view. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 tool's function: 'Insert a part from the parts library addon.' This uses a specific verb ('Insert') and resource ('part from the parts library addon'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_object (which creates new objects from scratch) and get_parts_list (which lists parts).

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 implies usage context (for inserting parts from the library) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. It relies on the tool name and the mention of the 'parts library addon' to hint at its niche, but lacks explicit guidance.

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