import_glb

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context that new objects are created and reported with world sizes, but it omits placement/origin behavior, coordinate handling, and how path is resolved.

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 well-formed sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing the return (new objects and their world sizes), and annotations carry the safety profile. For a one-parameter import tool this is nearly complete, though path semantics remain unaddressed.

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?

There is a single parameter at 0% schema description coverage, so the schema does not document 'path' at all. The description only implies it is a file path via 'GLB or glTF file', adding minimal meaning (no format, relative vs absolute, or directory semantics).

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 ('Import a GLB or glTF file') and adds a scope note that it lists the new objects with their world sizes. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_glb and inspect_glb, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'import' and the file-type constraint (GLB or glTF), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as inspect_glb (for inspecting without importing) or export_glb (for the reverse operation).

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