load_part

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the part becomes the current_shape and is registered as a named object, and that unspecified parameters use defaults. However, it lacks details on side effects like overwriting existing objects or required permissions.

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 at three sentences. It front-loads the main action and efficiently covers purpose, parameter usage, and behavioral outcome without unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: source of name, parameter handling, and result (becomes current_shape). Given that an output schema exists, return value details are not needed. However, error cases or constraints are not mentioned, which slightly reduces 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 input schema has zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains 'name' as a part name from search_library and 'params' as an optional JSON object with an example. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 purpose: 'Load a named part from the library into the session.' It specifies the action (load) and the resource (part). While it mentions the source (search_library), it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might 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 explains that 'name' should come from search_library and that 'params' is optional for overrides. It provides context on when to use the tool (after searching) but does not offer explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks.

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