Import .zpac garment files into a 3D design scene using specified import options, verify the imported item count, and handle timeouts by reconciling the operation.
Import .zpac using explicit ImportExportOption including bAdd; verify count. May change scene or write files. Verify resulting state. A timed-out operation is UNKNOWN: reconcile_operation before any retry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| options | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly warns that the operation 'May change scene or write files' and instructs verification of the resulting state. It also discloses the timeout behavior ('timed-out operation is UNKNOWN') and the required reconcile step. This is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema, though it could further clarify the nature of 'verify count'.
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 compact and information-dense. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of guidance: file type, option requirement, verification, side effect warning, timeout handling. There is no fluff or repetition.
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 destructive potential conciseness and lack of annotations, the description covers the essential operational caveats: importing .zpac, required option, verifying count/state, and timeout reconciliation. It does not explain what 'verify count' means or provide alternatives, but it is reasonably complete for a tool with a simple 2-param schema.
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. It adds some meaning by mentioning 'explicit ImportExportOption including bAdd' and the .zpac extension, but it does not explain the path parameter structure or the full options object beyond one member. The agent is left guessing about the value and shape of bAdd and other potential fields.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Import .zpac'. It clearly identifies the input file type and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like import_project and import_avatar by targeting garment-specific .zpac archives.
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 does not explicitly name alternatives, but it gives clear context: use this for .zpac imports with an explicit ImportExportOption including bAddсь. It also provides crucial post-conditions: verify count, verify resulting state, and reconcile before retry on timeout. This is strong usage guidance, though it lacks explicit exclusion of when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.