Import an FBX file from the workspace to update a scene, model, or animation. For animation, replace matching rig data, save a checkpoint, and inspect skeleton mappings.
Import an FBX from the workspace. Animation replaces matching rig data; save a checkpoint and inspect skeleton mappings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | scene | |
| path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only; the description adds valuable specifics: 'Animation replaces matching rig data' and the guidance to save a checkpoint and inspect skeleton mappings. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.
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?
Two short sentences contain the purpose, a key destructive caveat, and actionable workflow advice. The primary purpose is front-loaded and no words are wasted.
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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the destructive risk but leaves the mode parameter largely undocumented and provides no guidance on expected results or prerequisites. It is not complete enough for confident mode selection without further inspection.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It conveys that the path is workspace-relative via 'from the workspace,' and it hints at animation behavior, but it does not explain the mode parameter's scene/animation/model options or their effects.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import an FBX from the workspace.' This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools such as cascadeur_export_fbx and cascadeur_open_scene.
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 a usage context by warning that animation replaces matching rig data and advising a checkpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what prerequisites exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.