import_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers meaningful context: supported file formats, mesh joining, ground placement, size scaling behavior, and a cleanup/verification workflow. It does not mention error cases or permissions, but it discloses the most important behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 short and front-loaded with the core behavior, but it repeats the same statement in English and Korean, which is redundant. The size explanation and destroy workflow are useful, but the structural organization is a bit disjointed and could be tightened.

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 5-parameter import tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main behavior, file formats, size semantics, and post-import inspection/destroy step. It remains incomplete because it does not document center, on_ground/name behavior, return values, or failure handling, so an agent gets adequate but not fully self-sufficient guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It explicitly documents 'size' and implies on_ground via 'stand it on the ground,' but it leaves path, name, and especially center undocumented. The agent must infer the semantics of several parameters from their titles alone.

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 a specific action, resource, and behavior: 'Import a 3D model... join it into one mesh and stand it on the ground.' It lists supported formats and distinguishes itself from related siblings like export_model and inspect_mesh, so an agent can identify the right tool.

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 gives a follow-up workflow ('가져온 뒤 inspect_mesh 로 상태를 보고 destroy 한다' – after importing, inspect with inspect_mesh then destroy), which helps with usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving comparison to sibling tools implicit.

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