Open / import a model file

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key behavioral trait: operation replaces the current project unless importing. It also explains codec inference from the extension list and points to bb_status for format ids. It stops short of stating failure behavior for unknown codecs or whether unsaved changes are preserved or discarded.

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 dense sentences with the destructive effect front-loaded before the codec detail. No filler, no restating of the name or title.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone, and for a 3-parameter tool it covers load semantics, replace/merge behavior, and codec resolution adequately. It lacks any statement of what is returned or how errors (bad path, unsupported codec) surface.

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 67%, and the description compensates: it enumerates the recognized extensions that drive inference for path, points to bb_status as the source of valid format ids, and restates the merge-vs-replace meaning of import_to_current. Format remains an open string with no enum, so ids are still not resolvable from this definition alone.

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 and resource ("Load a model from disk") plus the scope of the effect (replacing the current project or importing into it), which separates it from bb_new_project and bb_save_project. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so sibling differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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 selection context: replace by default, or set import_to_current to merge into the open project. It also explains how the codec is chosen (extension inference vs. the format parameter), but offers no exclusions or prerequisites, such as what happens to unsaved work or unsupported extensions.

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