asset.import_file

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all four hints are false), so the description bears the full burden, yet it discloses no behavior: no scene effect, no file loading semantics, no error/rollback behavior, and no destructive/read-only nuance. 'Risk: standard' and 'maturity: L3' are generic labels, not behavioral disclosure, and 'session policy still applies' is an invocation constraint.

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 text is short, but brevity is not the issue: the first sentence merely echoes the name, and the second is generic policy/risk boilerplate. It is under-specified rather than efficiently informative, so it does not earn its place as a 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?

For an import operation with a required path, transaction id, expected revision, and a large sibling family, the description omits the essential context: what importing does, what file types/paths are accepted, how the transaction interacts with the import, and how it differs from fetch/download/import siblings. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing core semantics.

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 only 60%, and the two most semantically important parameters, path and _expectedSceneRevision, have no schema descriptions. The description adds nothing about what path should reference, what import options exist, or how the expected revision is used, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 only restates the command path ('PartMe Blender Harness command asset.import_file') and adds risk/maturity metadata; it never says what importing a file does or what kinds of assets are supported. The only hint about purpose comes from the tool name itself, so it reads as a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling asset tools such as blender_asset_fetch_url, blender_asset_polypizza_download, blender_asset_make_paths_relative, or blender_asset_library. The sentence about per-request argument checks and session policy is an operational requirement, not a selection guide.

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