import_sprite

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It merely says 'Import' without mentioning whether it overwrites existing files, what permissions are needed, or any project state changes. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameters. It is closer to a tautology than a helpful guide, lacking any additional structure or detail.

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 the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what a 'sprite' is in this context, how source_path and target_path relate, or what happens after import. The tool's simplicity does not excuse this incompleteness.

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 lists two parameters (source_path, target_path) with no descriptions, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not mention these parameters at all, leaving their meaning and relationship entirely unexplained.

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 clearly states the action ('Import') and the object ('a sprite'), and the phrase 'into the project' clarifies the destination. It is distinct from the sibling tool 'reimport_asset', which handles existing assets, though it could be more explicit about the asset type or format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention when to prefer this over 'reimport_asset' or other asset-related tools. There are no exclusions or contextual cues beyond the basic action.

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