import_external_feature

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does volunteer real behavioral facts: a side-effect of opening an inline 3D stage, automatic decimation of oversized meshes for the stage, and a PNG preview fallback. But it is silent on the mutation/versioning semantics (does it create a branch commit? modify an existing design?), permissions, and idempotency. The tier statement is also self-contradictory ("Everything in Free... Requires Kiln Pro"), which leaves the agent unsure whether the call is even permitted.

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?

Placeholder

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unspecified: parameter meaning, versioning/branch behavior, and format expectations are all missing. The one genuinely useful addition (inline stage + decimation behavior) does not offset those gaps.

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 38% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It never mentions asset_path (the sole required field), design_id, feature_kind, branch_name, source_attribution, or notes, and gives no hint about accepted file formats or how feature_id relates to the imported asset.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource ("Import an external feature asset as a versioned feature"), which an agent can act on. However, it never distinguishes this from close siblings like import_external_mesh, import_model_parts, or import_step_file, so the agent gets no help choosing among the import family. The subsequent upsell paragraph dilutes focus but doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says when to pick this over import_external_mesh or import_step_file, what kind of asset_path is acceptable, or what prerequisites (design_id? existing design?) apply. The only conditional content is a pricing upsell, which is not usage guidance.

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