import_project

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the operation may change the scene or write files, tells the agent to verify the resulting state, and explicitly warns that a timed-out operation is UNKNOWN. This is exemplary transparency for a mutating 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?

Five short, dense sentences, each carrying a distinct operational fact: preferred format, legacy caveat, side effects, verification, and timeout recovery. There is no filler or repetition, and the most important usage guidance is front-loaded.

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 state-changing import with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers side effects, modal risk, verification, and timeout recovery. It does not describe return values or explicit error cases, but the stated postconditions and safety guidance are the most relevant completeness elements for this tool.

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 real semantics by recommending a .zprj path, an explicit ImportZPRJOption including bAppend, and connecting modal-risk acknowledgement to the legacy import path. It does not explicitly name 'allow_potentially_modal', but the meaning is strongly implied.

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 never literally says 'imports a project', but the tool name plus phrases like 'ImportZPRJOption' and 'Legacy generic import' make the operation clear. It adds useful format-specific meaning but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling import tools such as import_garment or import_avatar.

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 explicit guidance: prefer .zprj with explicit ImportZPRJOption, warns that legacy generic import requires modal-risk acknowledgement, and instructs the agent to call reconcile_operation before any retry after a timeout. This is concrete when/how/when-not guidance with a named alternative action.

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