torch_import_modding

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates that assets are imported into build targets, which implies writes or modifications, but it does not disclose whether existing targets are overwritten, what files are affected, or any ROM/path requirements beyond the schema.

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 filler. It is front-loaded with the primary action and includes the most relevant path and target information, earning its place.

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 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It conveys the core action but lacks side-effect disclosure, usage routing, and enough workflow context for an agent to invoke it confidently in a modding pipeline.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds the path relationship 'destdir/modding/modding.yml' and names the target modes, which maps to the mode enum, but it does not explain srcdir, destdir, rom_path, or other parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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'), a specific resource path ('destdir/modding/modding.yml'), and the destination targets ('code, otr, o2r, or header'). This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like torch_export_modding.

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 'back into' implies this is the reverse of an export operation and should be used after editing modding assets, but the description does not explicitly state when to use the tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention preconditions or exclusions.

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