import_model_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden for a mutating import. It gestures at 'the same clean-up as library assets' but never says what that clean-up does, whether an existing object is overwritten, or how 'replace'/'preview' alter scene state — a significant gap for a write operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally fine, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy — one clause is expected to carry a 12-parameter mutating tool.

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?

Given 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 25% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently invoke this without knowing how the many optional placement/cleanup arguments interact with existing geometry.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It adds no meaning beyond the path argument (which the schema already documents) and leaves join, fit_to, place_on, rotation, replace, preview, and target_size unexplained in either place.

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 model file from disk') and implicitly contrasts with the sibling import_asset by scoping to disk files rather than library assets. It is not a tautology, but it never names the alternative tool to make the distinction explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With both import_asset and import_model_file among siblings, the agent must guess which one applies to a given source, and the description offers no routing rule.

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