Import a model from Asset Drawer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses three important traits: hierarchy preservation, automatic rollback on failure, and capability error reporting. This is strong for a tool without annotations, though it does not address outcomes like overwriting or duplicate handling.

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 concise, using three clear statements. It front-loads the primary purpose and contains no fluff. Every sentence adds necessary 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?

The description covers core function, inputs, and error scenarios, but does not specify the output or result of a successful import (e.g., returns a reference). Given the lack of output schema and annotations, this is a notable gap for an effective invocation.

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 67%. The description adds clarity for the `assetid` format (matching the pattern) but does not elaborate on `assetName` or `assetType`, which are already described in the schema. Overall, the description contributes modestly beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the action (import), the source (Asset Drawer), the target (level), and a key behavioral detail (hierarchy preserved). It differentiates from sibling `studio_import_image` by specifying 'model'.

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?

The description provides prerequisites (assetid format, assetName) and behavioral context (rollback, capability error), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `studio_create_part` or `studio_import_image`. The agent must infer based on the tool name and sibling context.

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