plasticity_import_reference_3mf

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: scale is dictated by the file's embedded unit, bounds are approximate, the server persists artifact hash, document/revision, mesh IDs, bounds, topology counts, and source URLs are redacted while retaining license and confidence. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then scaling caveat, then persistence/follow-up. Each sentence earns its place, though the registry enumeration is heavy and slightly dense for the reader.

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 output schema and a nested source object, the description supplies the important missing context: unit-driven scaling, approximate-vs-exact distinction, registry persistence, and the read-back sibling. Only the intent/path parameter semantics remain thin.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It partially does: it explains that the source object's URL is redacted and license/confidence are retained, and references the import-time document/revision. But 'path' and 'intent' semantics are left entirely to the schema, leaving a real gap for a 4-parameter tool with a nested object.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (import a local 3MF as approximate reference mesh geometry) and the mechanism (Plasticity's native importer). The 'local' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling plasticity_download_and_import_reference_3mf and from plasticity_import_reference_mesh, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear usage context: read returned mesh bounds and treat them as distinct from exact native B-rep dimensions, and points to plasticity_get_cad_reference_import for the historical record. It does not state when to prefer this over the download-and-import or generic reference-mesh siblings, but the local-file framing supplies enough context.

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