import_avatar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses 'May change scene or write files', instructs to verify resulting state, and explains that a timed-out operation is UNKNOWN and must be reconciled before retry. This is unusually transparent about side effects and failure semantics.

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?

Four dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Every clause adds a constraint or caveat relevant to safe invocation, and the most important action and format are stated first.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it covers prerequisites, side effects, and timeout recovery. It does not describe the success/return shape explicitly, but 'Verify resulting state' signals that scene inspection is the expected success check.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by adding meaning to 'path' (existing absolute path) and 'options' (explicit scale/axes, ImportObjectType=0). It gives only indirect context for 'acknowledge_modal_risk' via the modal acknowledgement warning, so one parameter remains under-explained.

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 'Import verified OBJ avatar' – a specific verb, resource, and format. It clearly differentiates this from sibling import tools by stating OBJ ImportObjectType=0 is verified while FBX/AVT imports are unverified.

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 concrete call requirements: use an existing absolute path and explicit scale/axis options, and notes that OBJ is the verified path. It warns about modal acknowledgement and unverified FBX/AVT, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those cases.

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