import_cad_file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the useful context that import targets the currently active document, implying a session-state dependency, but says nothing about what happens on name collisions, whether existing geometry is merged or replaced, or what errors occur for unsupported formats.

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 short fragment with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it omits a verb and reads like a label. Being front-loaded is not enough when the sentence doesn't fully state an action.

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 mutating import tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage and only a fragment of a description, the agent lacks the information needed to call it confidently (required active document, name semantics, overwrite behavior). The description covers only the input formats.

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 for the two parameters, yet it says nothing about 'path' (file location/format expectations) or 'name' (default empty, likely the resulting component/document name). The format list loosely relates to what 'path' may point at but adds no field-level meaning.

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 names the accepted formats (STEP, F3D, SMT, mesh) and the target ('active FCA document'), which conveys the import action even though the verb itself is only implied by the tool name. It does not distinguish the tool from siblings like 'assembly_add_part' or 'execute_file', which an agent might confuse with file ingestion.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (such as requiring an active/open document), and no mention of alternatives for other ingestion paths. The only usage signal is the implicit 'active FCA document' target.

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