ap_import_asset

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that meshes 'replaces/adds' geometry and that routing depends on extension. It does not state whether imports overwrite existing assets, what happens on unsupported extensions, or whether an open project is required.

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?

One tightly structured sentence with a colon separating the general action from the extension cases. Every word adds information; no filler.

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 single-parameter import tool, the description is nearly complete: path is handled and expected outcomes are enumerated. The only gap is lack of return-value/error behavior, but the operation's effect is observable in the project.

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 only parameter, path, is already fully documented in the schema with absolute-path/forward-slash guidance. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond that, so the 100% schema coverage sets the baseline.

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 action ('Import a file'), the target project, and the three extension-routed outcomes. This makes it immediately distinguishable from more specialized siblings like ap_import_envmap.

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 extension-dispatch rule implies this is the right tool for image, mesh, and .arm files, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with ap_import_envmap or says when not to use it. An agent must infer the boundary from sibling names.

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