import_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers almost nothing. 'Import' weakly implies a mutation that loads geometry into the current document, but the description does not state whether it replaces or appends content, whether a file path or inline content is expected, what happens on failure, or what permissions are required. Only the implied mutation keeps this above a 1.

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 single sentence is short and front-loaded, but this is under-specification rather than economy: every sentence that would earn its place is absent. Brevity here costs the agent essential information rather than saving it.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three fully undocumented parameters, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably call this tool from the given definition.

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?

All three parameters (path, content, encoding) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description contributes nothing to explain them. It does not clarify the interaction between path and content, nor the meaning of the utf8/base64 enum values. The agent is left to guess at every input.

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 a specific verb (Import) and resource type (STEP content), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling importers (import_iges, import_stl, import_obj, import_dwg), so an agent must already know what STEP is to select this over alternatives. This is the minimum viable statement of purpose.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as import_iges or import_dwg for other formats. The agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice versus the other 10+ import/export siblings.

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