asset.import_file

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

The description adds no behavior beyond the annotations: it does not state that import_file mutates the asset library or scene, whether it can fail midway, or what side effects occur. 'Risk: standard; maturity: L3' is metadata, not behavioral disclosure, and the annotations provide no safety profile.

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 short and front-loaded, but it spends its sentences on a command identifier and risk metadata rather than user-facing meaning. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness; no sentence explains what the tool does.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested path object, transaction-related arguments, and an output schema, this description gives the agent none of the needed context. It does not state what value path takes, what _expectedSceneRevision guards, or what the import will do, so a correct call would depend on guessing.

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 required 'path' parameter is an opaque object with no property details; the description does not compensate by explaining path format or the meaning of _expectedSceneRevision. The schema's descriptions for _requestId, _authorization, and _transactionId are the only semantic info, and the description adds none.

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 merely restates the command as 'PartMe Blender Harness command asset.import_file' and adds no verb, resource, or effect. It never says that a file is imported into Blender's asset library, so the agent learns nothing beyond the tool name.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool instead of any sibling such as blender_asset_library, blender_asset_pack_resources, or blender_export_file. The only operational note, 'per-request argument checks and session policy still apply,' is a constraint, not a usage guideline.

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