vrc_import_model

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses axis conversion, transform application, and model stats reporting, but does not mention side effects like adding objects to the scene, error handling, or permissions. Some behavioral context is provided but not comprehensive.

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 very concise: one sentence and a bullet list covering four parameters. No unnecessary words, each sentence adds value.

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 tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. It doesn't detail error scenarios or what happens to existing scene content, but the essential behavior is clear.

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%, but the description lists all four parameters with meaningful explanations, including the enum-like values for fbx_preset and defaults for boolean parameters. This adds significant value beyond the schema titles.

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 the verb 'import' and the resource 'model file', lists supported formats (FBX/VRM/OBJ), and mentions the optional auto-fix for VRChat. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vrc_fix_model and io_import_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 implies when to use (initial import for VRChat) by specifying supported formats and the auto-fix option, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. It offers clear context for its intended use.

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