blender_import_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of revealing behavior. It does disclose that format detection is automatic, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects such as adding objects to the current scene, potential unit/scale handling, or whether existing scene content is preserved, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a mutation-like 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words. It conveys the core action, the resource, and the critical format information compactly.

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 low-complexity tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and accepted formats. It could be slightly more explicit about the effect on the current scene, but the essential information for selecting and invoking the tool is present.

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?

The schema already documents filepath with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the supported formats (glTF, FBX, OBJ, etc.), which directly informs what values filepath may take and helps the agent validate input before calling.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Import') with a clear resource ('3D file') and enumerates supported formats, making it immediately obvious what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from the many export-oriented siblings (e.g., blender_export_gltf, blender_export_fbx) by focusing on importing.

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 clearly implies the tool is for bringing external 3D files into Blender, and the auto-detection note tells the agent which formats are accepted. There are no competing import tools among the siblings, so explicit when-not guidance is unnecessary, though it could have mentioned that it adds objects to the current scene.

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