load_part

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It reveals that the part becomes current_shape and is registered as a named object, but does not mention error handling (e.g., part not found) or authorization requirements, leaving gaps.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences plus parameter details) and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 two parameters and an output schema (not shown but exists), the description sufficiently explains inputs and side effects. It could optionally mention the output format, but the rules state output schema covers that, so it is complete enough.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains that 'name' comes from search_library and 'params' is a JSON object of overrides with a concrete example, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type-only definition.

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 ('Load a named part from the library into the session') and identifies the specific resource (part) and source (library). It also notes the side effect of becoming current_shape, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_library.

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 after search_library by specifying 'name: part name from search_library' and explains parameter overrides. However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance, though it is clear within its context.

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