manage_object_repo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the repository location and outlines each operation's high-level behavior (e.g., export to file, append to scene, filter index). However, it lacks details on side effects like overwriting or naming conflicts, and does not mention permissions or error states.

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 relatively short and uses bullet points for clarity, front-loading the purpose. However, the repository location is mentioned twice, adding slight redundancy. Overall, it is well-structured.

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 an output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 18 parameters and 4 sub-operations. It fails to explain how the 'operation' parameter selects the sub-operation, nor does it detail the role of many parameters. Critical information about parameter dependencies and operational behavior is missing.

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 explains parameters indirectly through operation descriptions (e.g., 'transforms' for load, 'query, category, tags, quality' for search). Many parameters (e.g., object_name_display, target_name, position, scale, version, author, min_quality, complexity, limit, quality_rating, public) are not explained, leaving gaps.

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 it manages an object repository with four specific operations: save, load, search, list_objects. The bullet points differentiate each operation's purpose. However, the generic verb 'manage' and grouping multiple operations into one tool could cause slight ambiguity, but overall it is clear.

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 for saving/loading/searching objects in the repository, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like manage_asset_library, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it.

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