Import Geometry File

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive, so the description adds some value by specifying the target is the 'active design'. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes (e.g., missing active design, unsupported file formats) or whether existing geometry is replaced.

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 compact sentence that immediately states the action and target. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or superfluous content.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists, so the description is largely sufficient. It correctly identifies the prerequisite of an active design. It could mention file format constraints or behavior when no design is active, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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% and the single parameter file_path has a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add extra parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Insert') and resource ('existing CAD file into the active design'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_block or create_cylinder that generate new geometry. The title also reinforces the 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?

The description implies use when an existing CAD file needs to be added to the active design, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like geometry_create_block or geometry_launch. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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