import_file

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and the auto-detection behavior; it does not disclose side effects such as whether the import appends to the current scene, whether it replaces existing objects, what coordinate system/scale is applied, or if it may fail for unsupported formats. This lack of transparency is significant for a mutation-style tool.

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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and then lists arguments in a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundancy. It is minimally adequate, though the format could be tightened by merging the purpose line with the args or adding a note about typical usage.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the essentials are present: the action and the parameters. However, it does not explain what happens after import (e.g., objects added to the scene, whether existing objects are cleared), nor does it address potential error conditions or file access requirements. Given the tool's role in a large 3D editing context, these gaps make it adequate but not complete.

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 does by explaining filepath as 'Path to the file to import' and file_type as a list of supported formats with the auto-detection rule. This adds meaningful semantic information beyond the bare schema titles and types, though it could be slightly richer (e.g., relative vs absolute paths, case sensitivity).

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Import a 3D model file.' It begins with the core purpose and the Args section lists supported formats (FBX, OBJ, GLTF, etc.), which distinguishes it from export tools like export_fbx or open_blend_file. However, it does not explicitly contrast with open_blend_file or note that it is for external formats, so it stops just short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that open_blend_file should be used for .blend files or export_file for saving, nor does it describe the import context (e.g., appending to the current scene versus creating a new one). The only usage hint is the parameter note about auto-detection, which is not tool-selection guidance.

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