scene_import_assets

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description earns its keep by explaining why: every import adds new entities and importing twice duplicates content. It also discloses a significant operational trait not in the schema — roughly 45 seconds of exclusive mouse/keyboard control — and the async runId pattern.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the blocking cost, then the return contract, then the duplicate hazard. No filler and each sentence adds distinct operational information.

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 correctly explains the async return (runId) and where to read results. The remaining gap is the pack-name/limit constraint, which matters because a rejected import is silent until playtest_status is polled.

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 had room to compensate. It implies 'packs' is a list and that the overview screenshot is toggled by the overview flag, but it never mentions the 1–5 item limit or the pack-name pattern the schema enforces. Partial compensation only.

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 (import), a specific resource (asset packs built by scene_build_blocks), and the destination (the save open in the editor) plus the UI path used. An agent can distinguish this from scene_build_blocks (producer) and scene_import_simulator without opening any schema.

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 the precondition (packs must have been built by scene_build_blocks), the follow-up step (read outcome via playtest_status), and an explicit warning that re-importing a pack duplicates entities. It does not contrast against the nearest sibling, scene_import_simulator, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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