blender_import_asset

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 the critical behavioral trait that mutation occurs only when dry_run=false, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral details like side effects on the scene, potential naming conflicts, or what the planning mode actually does.

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 a single concise sentence with a critical qualifier. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the essential behavioral note without any fluff or redundancy.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a key behavioral gate, but it lacks details on the planning semantics, checkpoint behavior, or return values. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to use safely and effectively.

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 only 33% (only filepath has a description). The description adds meaning to dry_run by stating mutation requires false, but it does nothing for create_checkpoint or further clarify filepath. This is insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('plan or import') and resource ('supported character asset'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like export or create. However, 'plan' is somewhat ambiguous and could be clearer, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as blender_validate_character or blender_create_humanoid_character. The description implies a planning mode but doesn't state scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear selection criteria.

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