unreal_import_asset

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the no-dialog behavior, overwrite semantics of replace_existing, error message format, and the fact that the source file must exist on the editor machine. This is substantial context. Missing some potential side effects (e.g., what happens on failed import beyond error message), but overall solid.

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 well-structured with Args, Returns, and Examples sections, and key behavior (no dialog, overwrite) is front-loaded. It is relatively long but information-dense; the examples clarify use cases. Could be slightly tighter, but structure aids scanning.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return schema, error handling ('Error: <message>' when source missing), and usage guidance with sibling differentiation. For an import operation with no annotations provided, this description fully equips an agent to decide when to call it, what arguments to provide, and what to expect in return.

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?

All four parameters (source_file, destination_path, replace_existing, save) are described with types and meaning. Adds the /Game requirement for destination_path and the default True for replace_existing and save, which the schema does not state. Return schema is also documented with counts and destination. This goes well beyond the schema alone.

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 states a specific verb ('import'), resource ('file from disk into the project's content browser'), and scope ('Runs Unreal's automated import pipeline'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming what it is not (use unreal_list_assets when already in project, use unreal_spawn_actor for placing).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Use when: bring this FBX into Unreal' and 'Don't use when: the asset is already in the project (use unreal_list_assets)'. It also mentions a sibling tool (unreal_spawn_actor) for a follow-up action.

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