import_external_mesh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that the tool opens an interactive 3D stage, that oversized meshes are automatically decimated for the stage, and that a PNG preview is the floor, but it omits key import semantics such as permissions, overwrite/reversibility behavior, side effects on the design, and error handling.

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 is front-loaded, but the description is bloated with promotional pricing/upgrade text, a long MAKE DOORS tangent, and repeated inline-stage explanation. Several sentences do not earn their place in a tool definition.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, and the tool has seven parameters with low schema description coverage. The description covers the interactive stage but leaves major gaps around parameter meaning, usage alternatives, permissions, and mutation side effects.

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 only 43%, so the description needs to compensate, but it does not explain design_id, mesh_path, branch_name, design_name, source_attribution, notes, or brief_id. The format list loosely relates to mesh_path but does not clarify parameter 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: importing external geometry as a first-class design version, and it lists supported formats (STL/OBJ/PLY/GLB/glTF/3MF/STEP). It does not clearly differentiate this tool from sibling import tools such as import_step_file or import_external_feature.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use import_external_mesh versus sibling import tools. The MAKE DOORS / compile_scad passage discusses making objects generally, not when this import tool is the right choice.

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