io_import_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-detection and supported formats but omits behavioral details like whether the import replaces existing objects, handles animations/textures, or error behavior for unsupported formats.

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 relatively concise, with a single paragraph plus a list of supported formats and Args. It front-loads the purpose. However, the format list could be integrated more efficiently or placed in schema enums.

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?

Given the two parameters and lack of output schema or annotations, the description covers basic purpose and parameters. However, it lacks details on return values, scene impact (e.g., selection behavior), and error handling, making it barely adequate for a file import operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The Args section adds meaning by clarifying file_format as 'Override format detection,' which is not in the schema. However, it does not specify whether filepath must be absolute/relative or the format of the string.

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 'Import a 3D file into the current scene,' specifies auto-detection from extension, and lists all supported formats. This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes from sibling export tools.

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 implies when to use (when importing a file) but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like import_generated_asset or mention when not to use the tool. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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