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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a success/failure message and a screenshot, which adds some context beyond the input schema. However, it doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, or how errors are handled. For a tool that likely modifies a document (implied by 'insert'), this is a significant gap.

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, with a clear purpose statement followed by Args and Returns sections. Each sentence serves a purpose: the first explains the tool's function, and the next two detail inputs and outputs. There's no unnecessary information, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists (implied by the Returns section), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and return values, but lacks usage guidelines and detailed behavioral context. For a tool that inserts parts, more information on dependencies or error conditions would improve completeness.

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 adds minimal semantics for the single parameter 'relative_path', explaining it as 'The relative path of the part to insert.' This provides basic meaning beyond the schema, which has 0% description coverage and only lists the parameter as a string. However, it doesn't elaborate on format, examples, or constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 purpose: 'Insert a part from the parts library addon.' It specifies the verb ('insert') and resource ('part from the parts library addon'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_object' or 'get_parts_list', which could have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing the parts library addon to be available, or compare it to siblings like 'create_object' for creating objects from scratch or 'get_parts_list' for listing parts. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose the right tool.

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