Import asset sources

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 write. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it validates FBX version/texture size/naming, expands folders only at top level, and reports whether the running editor has the module loaded plus the required ordering (materials before FBX, editor restart). It does not restate the safety hints, which is appropriate.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and each following sentence carries distinct information (validation, conversion path, reporting, folder expansion). The prose is dense and slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description pre-empts the return-value question by saying the result tells the agent what to do next, in what order, and whether the editor has the module loaded. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though the response format is left qualitative rather than structured.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that folders are expanded only at the top level (claryfing the files parameter) and by explaining the reimport-vs-new-asset distinction tied to the Resource Browser flow, adding value the property descriptions only partly cover.

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 (copies/imports) and resource (FBX meshes and textures into <module>/AssetSources), and the naming clearly separates it from siblings such as asset_search, asset_status, and editor_command. An agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 makes clear the context of use (staging sources for the Modding Kit editor to convert) and warns that copying is not converting, pointing to the Resource Browser workflow. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or explicit when-not conditions, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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