import_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds the copy-into-case framing but says nothing about overwrite behavior when dest already exists or about permissions/errors.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the action and resource, with the example placed at the end where it does not obstruct the core meaning. No padding.

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?

With no output schema the description needn't explain returns, and annotations cover safety, but for a file-copy tool the overwrite/conflict behavior and any size or format restrictions are left unstated, leaving a modest gap.

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 100%, so case/source/dest are already fully documented in the schema. The description only adds example file types (STL/OBJ) and does not explain parameter interactions beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('geometry (STL/OBJ), meshes or other files') and the destination context ('into a case'). An agent can tell this apart from read_file/list_files, though the boundary with write_file is not made explicit.

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 phrase 'e.g. the surface for snappyHexMesh' implies a typical use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the sibling write_file as an alternative for in-case content creation.

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