Import 3d Model

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is acknowledged. The description adds context by explaining the copy operation, the return of a portable ${KIPRJMOD} path, and the overwrite behavior (via schema). This goes beyond bare annotation disclosure, though it omits failure modes or permission requirements.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence earns its place. No redundant wording or fluff.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and rich parameter descriptions, the description is complete enough. It covers the workflow, file types, and return value usage. It does not detail every edge case (e.g., behavior when libraryDir is omitted), but those are already in the schema, so the description is adequate.

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 100%, so the parameters are already described in detail. The description adds value by noting the source file's supported extensions and explicitly linking the returned modelPath to downstream tools, which helps agents understand the purpose of modelPath and projectPath beyond the schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('3D model file into project's *.3dshapes library folder'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_footprint_3d_model. It also lists supported file extensions, removing ambiguity about what files it accepts.

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 clear context: it is a preliminary step before attaching the model via add_footprint_3d_model or add_component_3d_model. It names these alternatives explicitly, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if the file already exists in the library), so it falls short of a 5.

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