ue_import_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral details like GLB/GLTF using Interchange and the skeletal import option. However, it does not mention potential side effects (e.g., overwriting without warning), error behavior, or authentication/authorization needs for a mutation tool.

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 concise, using a short introductory sentence followed by a clear list of arguments. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or excessive detail.

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 formats, skeletal import) and the presence of an output schema (so return values not needed), the description covers key behavioral aspects. It could additionally mention error handling or that the tool is specific to Unreal Engine, but overall it is adequate.

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 compensates well. It explains each parameter: files (absolute paths), destination (Unreal folder), replace_existing (overwrites), import_as_skeletal (for FBX skeleton). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 clearly states the tool imports 3D/audio files into the Content Browser and lists supported formats. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'ue_import_audio' which may have overlapping functionality for audio files.

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 context for when to use certain parameters (e.g., use import_as_skeletal for FBX with skeletons) and mentions the Interchange framework for GLB/GLTF. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives (like ue_import_audio 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.