ue_import_assets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that GLB/GLTF go through Interchange and that replace_existing controls overwriting. This gives a clear behavioral picture without contradictions.

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 and well-structured, starting with a main line, followed by technical notes, and then a clear parameter listing with examples. Every sentence adds value.

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 handling), the description covers all necessary aspects: supported formats, framework usage, parameter semantics, and intent. No gaps remain.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description explains each parameter in detail, including absolute paths, destination folder, and the role of import_as_skeletal for FBX. This fully compensates 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 clearly states that the tool imports 3D/audio files into the Content Browser, listing specific formats. The verb 'import' and resource 'assets' are explicit, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ue_import_audio by being more general.

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 for when to use import_as_skeletal with FBX files and mentions the Interchange framework for GLB/GLTF. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the sibling tools list implies specialization.

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