scene_import_model

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: import runs through the scene's existing import settings and adds new objects to the current scene rather than replacing it, plus it names the return payload.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action and format list front-loaded and the return value relegated to a trailing clause.

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?

With only one parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema that documents return values, the description covers the essentials. Minor residual gaps are path format conventions and whether existing objects are affected, which an agent might still want.

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 carry the weight for the single 'path' parameter. It partially does by stating the file is a model file and listing accepted formats, but it does not specify absolute vs. relative paths, whether directories are allowed, or error behavior for unsupported formats.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Import a model file ... into the scene') and enumerates supported formats (FBX, OBJ, glTF, USD), which separates it from generic scene loading. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from scene_load or material_import, but the model-file framing makes the intent clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for bringing model geometry into a scene. There is no mention of when to prefer it over scene_load, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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