Import / Merge Scene File

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that the tool mutates the active document by merging, returns newly-imported top-level objects, and can optionally reparent and rename. However, it does not mention side effects such as name collisions, whether the operation changes the active document beyond adding objects, or behavior on merge failure.

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 compact and front-loaded. The first sentence names the core operation and formats; the second covers return value and optional behaviors. Every sentence provides useful signal with no redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description usefully states that the tool returns newly-imported top-level objects for chaining. It also covers file formats and optional parent/rename behavior. It is slightly incomplete regarding prerequisites and side effects, but sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaningful semantics for parent and rename, clarifying that imported objects are reparented and the first root is renamed. It also explains the return value in relation to the filter. Path and filter remain schema-described, which is acceptable given full coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: merge an external file into the active document via MergeDocument. It also clarifies the return value and optional behaviors, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like open_document or reset_scene.

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?

It gives clear context: use this when importing/merging an external scene file into the active document. It also mentions chainability with set_params / create_entity / create_take, which helps the agent understand the workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intent is clear.

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