import_step

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a non-obvious side effect: the STEP is copied into dest_folder because Inventor writes parts next to the .step file. It also enumerates what is returned (path, type, overall bbox, per-component bbox/volume). It omits overwrite behavior, permission requirements, and failure modes for a write 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 purpose leads, the rationale for the copy follows, and parameters are grouped cleanly under Args. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing redundant.

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 four-parameter import tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, the key side effect, and the workflow hand-off to place_component. The output schema already covers return values, so the remaining gap is minor (overwrite/permission semantics rather than structural information).

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 coverage is only 25%, so the description must compensate, and it explains all three parameters it lists: step_path is the downloaded .step/.stp, dest_folder is where Inventor files go, and name defaults to the STEP file name. The fourth parameter (instance) is documented in the schema itself, leaving no meaningful gap.

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 verb and resource ('Import a vendor STEP file ... as Inventor files in dest_folder') plus scope details like hinge/lock/gland examples. Clearly distinct from siblings such as create_part, place_component, and execute_python.

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?

Gives downstream guidance ('use them to find mounting faces and axes before placing it with place_component'), which tells the agent when this tool fits in the workflow. It doesn't state exclusions or name alternatives for other file formats or import paths, so it falls short of a 5.

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