import_folder_as_character

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the import sequencing (skeletal mesh first to establish the skeleton, then textures, then animations reusing that skeleton), the auto-create vs. reuse skeleton behavior, and the return report structure including the 'reused_skeleton' flag. This is unusually thorough behavioral disclosure.

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 long but every section earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, the folder layout tree is essential for the format-dependent tool, the import-order paragraph explains behavior, and the Args/Returns blocks compensate for the empty schema and missing output schema. The KB pointer and example are compact additions.

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 6-parameter composite import tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, this description is essentially complete: purpose, folder format, import sequencing, all parameters, return JSON shape, example call, and a knowledge-base reference. The errors array in the return format even hints at failure reporting. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does fully: all six parameters (folder_path, character_name, ue5_base_path, skeleton, import_animations, import_morph_targets) get meaningful explanations including defaults and the 'leave empty to auto-create' semantics for skeleton. The folder layout diagram also clarifies what folder_path must point to.

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 and resource: 'Import a character export folder (mesh + textures + animations) as a complete set under one UE5 destination.' It clearly distinguishes the composite scope from siblings like import_skeletal_mesh, import_texture, and import_animation_fbx by emphasizing the complete mesh+textures+animations bundle, even though it never names them explicitly.

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 gives clear usage context: 'Designed for KotOR/GhostRigger export folders' and spells out the exact expected folder layout (required mesh FBX, textures subfolder, optional animations subfolder). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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