import_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so substantially: it states the original file is unchanged, that opaque Principled PBR and glTF ORM inputs are baked while rigs/transparency/mixed shaders fail explicitly, that up_axis is applied after format conversion, and that CC0 provenance is retained and no generation service is billed.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and most sentences carry distinct operational detail, but the middle section reads as a dense run-on of format/bake/correction rules rather than cleanly grouped points.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the important behavioral ground (baking, failure modes, preview workflow, polling, provenance). Only the asset_id and position parameters and a clear sibling comparison are 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 coverage is 0% with a nested free-form source and settings object, so the description must compensate and largely does: it specifies the source shape ({provider: local, path} or {provider: polyhaven, id}), enumerates settings keys including texture_size values, lod_ratios ordering, collision options, and explains preview_only. It leaves asset_id and position undocumented.

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 first sentence names a specific verb (import) and resource (asset) plus supported formats and two source providers. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like prepare_asset or build_asset despite calling itself 'Prepare and import'.

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?

It gives useful workflow guidance: preview_only produces an isolated draft whose source is later fed to publish_prepared, and the user should poll the exact request. However, it never states when to choose import_asset over prepare_asset or build_asset, leaving the key sibling choice to inference.

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