import_landscape_heightmap

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantially more: the resolution-matching constraint, the fact that success/applied is only an acknowledgement and not proof of applied data, and the specific verification path (export_landscape_heightmap + array compare, or get_landscape_height_at probes). This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that exceeds structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries operational value (preference rationale, prerequisite, verification). The clause about the editor dialog is slightly verbose, but it earns its place by justifying tool selection, so it is dense rather than wasteful.

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 destructive, resolution-sensitive import tool, the description covers the prerequisite (landscape sizing), the failure mode (silent peak drop / partial fill via the dialog), the return shape, and how to verify success. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and confirm the result.

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 100%, so file_path, landscape_actor_name, and flip_y are already documented in the schema. The description adds indirect context (source vs dest dimensions via resampled, default actor behavior) but no per-parameter syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair: 'Load a PNG or 16-bit .r16 heightmap file from disk and stamp it onto an existing landscape.' It distinguishes itself from the nearest alternative (the editor's Import from File dialog) and points at the related create_landscape tool, so an agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('this is the reliable route to terrain relief'), when-not-to-use (editor's Import from File dialog, which 'can fill only part of the components and drop the peak'), and a hard prerequisite ('create the landscape at the file's own vertex size first... so resampled comes back false'). Nothing is left to inference.

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