pixera_import_resource

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that directory import is non-destructive ('never removes existing resources'), that OBJ files are mapped to a specific resource type, and that the return is name/id/type per resource. It does not address permissions, auth, or single-file conflict behavior, so it falls short of complete behavioral coverage.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded ahead of the mode detail, and the parenthetical '(or, with directory=true, ...)' keeps the flag semantics adjacent to the behavior they control. Slightly dense but every clause carries information; no filler.

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 3-param mutation tool with no annotations but a present output schema, the description covers purpose, the key behavioral caveat (non-destructive directory import), the follow-up workflow, and return shape. The main gap is the unexplained folder_name_path parameter, which the agent must infer from the schema title alone.

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 only partially does: it explains the 'directory' flag's mode-switching behavior but leaves 'path' and especially 'folder_name_path' (the destination folder) undefined. One of three parameters is meaningfully clarified in prose.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Import a file ... into a resource folder') and immediately clarifies the directory-mode scope. It also distinguishes its role from siblings by naming pixera_setup_layer as the follow-up for assigning the resulting resource. An agent can tell this apart from list_resources/find_resource/import_mappings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear operational context: use directory=true to import a whole folder, OBJ files become '3DModel' resources, and the next step is pixera_setup_layer(model_resource_id=...). It never states when *not* to use it or names a competing tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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