Import Mechanical Geometry

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds that it targets the 'active Mechanical model', implying a prerequisite state. However, it does not disclose what happens on file-not-found, file-format compatibility, or whether repeated imports replace existing geometry, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It immediately states the action and target, earning the highest score for conciseness and structure.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential 'what' and 'where'. It could be more complete by mentioning supported file types or that the Mechanical model must be active, but the output schema and annotations reduce the burden.

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?

The input schema has one parameter, file_path, with a description already covering meaning (absolute or relative path). With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 'Import' and clearly identifies the resource: 'existing geometry file' and the destination: 'active Mechanical model'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like geometry_import_file, which target the geometry editor rather than the Mechanical 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 phrase 'into the active Mechanical model' indicates the intended context and implies that this tool is for transferring geometry into a Mechanical simulation setup, as opposed to geometry creation or other operations. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but for a single-purpose import tool this is sufficient.

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