import_model_parts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful context: it says the tool opens an inline 3D stage, adds a hosted browser stage link in some hosts, and decimates oversized meshes. However, it omits important import behavior such as accepted file formats, error cases, overwrite behavior, and what happens to named parts.

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 useful import description is front-loaded, but the text is bloated by an unrelated 'MAKE DOORS' tangent and repeats the 3D-stage behavior in a separate paragraph. The redundancy and off-topic routing content reduce clarity.

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 and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the stage/decimation behavior but does not explain the parameters, return values, file format expectations, or failure modes needed for correct invocation.

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 schema has four parameters at 75% description coverage, but three descriptions are only 'Default: ""' and model_path has no description. The tool description does not explain model_path, brief_id, design_id, or output_dir, so it fails to compensate for the weak schema 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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource: import a multi-part model while preserving named parts. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as import_external_mesh or import_step_file.

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 does not state when to choose this tool over import_external_mesh, import_step_file, or other import/merge tools. The 'MAKE DOORS' paragraph discusses design_session and compile_scad, which is unrelated routing guidance rather than usage criteria for import_model_parts.

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