import_asset

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses real post-processing behavior per mode: models are cleaned, real-sized, grounded and credited; textures become box-projected PBR materials; HDRIs drive world lighting. It stops short of safety/mutation details - it never says what 'replace' or 'preview' do to existing scene objects, nor any download/network constraints.

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, front-loaded with the core action and then a terse per-type breakdown. No filler; every clause conveys distinct behavior.

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 20-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the mode coverage is good but the parameter interplay and the effect on the existing scene are not explained. It is adequate as a conceptual overview but incomplete as invocation guidance.

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?

With 20 parameters and only 55% schema coverage, the description adds conceptual context that helps interpret the type-specific clusters (strength/background/hdri_rotation for HDRIs, apply_to/faces for textures). It still names no parameters directly and leaves many of the 20 (name, preview, replace, place_on, rotation, max_faces, etc.) undocumented in both schema and prose.

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 ('Download an asset ... and bring it in scene-ready') and names the sibling it follows from ('found with search_assets'). It also breaks the outcome down by asset type (models/textures/HDRIs), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the 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 prerequisite workflow is embedded explicitly: find with search_assets, then import here. However, no exclusions or alternatives are given for the nearby sibling import_model_file, so the agent must infer the boundary between importing an online asset and a local model file.

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