import_asset

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the nature of the parameters but does not disclose potential errors, behavior when replace_existing is false and asset exists, or what the output schema contains. The description implies a write operation but lacks details on side effects or requirements.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and supported formats. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points for parameter details) but is generally effective and free of fluff.

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?

The tool has an output schema, but the description does not mention return values or error conditions. It covers the basic parameters but lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., editor running, file accessibility), edge cases, or post-import behavior. Adequate for simple cases but incomplete for complex scenarios.

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 adds meaning for source_file and destination_path by explaining their types and paths. However, it does not explain replace_existing (since it is optional with default true), leaving that parameter's semantics unclear. Partial compensation for missing schema descriptions.

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 'external files', specifying supported formats (FBX/OBJ/glTF, PNG/EXR, WAV, etc.) and target location '/Game'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_exists, asset_info, etc., which deal with existing assets rather than importing.

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 explains the purpose and format of both source_file (absolute path) and destination_path (content path like '/Game/Imported'), which gives context on when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving room for improvement.

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