ue_import_assets

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that replace_existing overwrites assets with the same name, and that files must be absolute paths. It also mentions the processing pipeline for specific formats. However, it does not specify the return value or error behavior, though an output schema exists.

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 brief and well-structured: two paragraphs, the first stating purpose and special cases, the second listing parameters with explanations. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or missing information. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple file types, skeletal import option, overwrite behavior) and the absence of annotations, the description covers essential use cases and parameter roles. It omits details on error handling but, per guidelines, the output schema (which exists) can cover return values. The description is sufficient for correct agent invocation.

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%, but the description's Args section clearly explains each parameter's meaning and context: files require absolute paths, destination is an Unreal path, replace_existing controls overwriting, and import_as_skeletal is for .fbx skeletal imports. This far exceeds what the schema provides, fully compensating for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear statement of the tool's purpose: importing 3D and audio files into Unreal's Content Browser. It lists specific file extensions (.glb, .gltf, .fbx, .wav) and distinguishes between file types, making the resource and action very clear. This effectively differentiates it from sibling tools like ue_import_audio.

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 provides specific guidance on when to use certain parameters (e.g., using import_as_skeletal=True for .fbx files with skeletons). It also notes that .glb/.gltf go through Interchange framework. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with siblings like ue_import_audio, which could cause confusion for audio-only imports.

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