studio_import

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

With no annotations to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses that the call seizes mouse and keyboard for about 15 seconds, that returning only means the importer accepted the file, that the Import Queue completes a few seconds later, and that the caller should verify the model landed before using it.

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?

Five short sentences with no filler, purpose front-loaded ahead of preconditions and then the async-completion caveat. Every clause carries operational meaning the agent would otherwise get wrong.

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?

Despite a one-parameter tool, the real complexity is environmental, and the description covers all of it: window count, mode, visibility, input capture, timing, and post-call verification. An output schema exists, yet it still usefully explains what a successful return actually signifies.

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 for the single 'path' parameter. It does that partially by implying the value is a model file in one of four formats, but it never states whether the path must be absolute, on the local disk, or relative to some working directory.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Import a model file') and enumerates the supported formats (FBX, OBJ, GLB, GLTF), plus the exact mechanism used (Studio's 3D Importer via File > Import). That mechanism detail alone separates it from the rojo_* siblings, which belong to a different asset pipeline.

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?

Gives hard preconditions: exactly one Studio window, Edit mode rather than playtesting, and the window must be visible on screen, plus a spacing rule between consecutive imports. It never explicitly contrasts itself with the rojo tools, so the agent must infer the alternative, which keeps it short of a 5.

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