import_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states that a STEP file is imported; it does not mention side effects, whether the target document is modified in place, whether a new document is created, overwrite behavior, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a mutating file-import operation.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, the phrase 'target document' introduces ambiguity and the description provides no supporting structure or context beyond the bare action, so it is concise but slightly under-specified.

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?

Although an output schema exists, this is a mutating import tool with three parameters and zero annotation coverage. The description does not explain what the import operation does to the document, what parameters are required, what the output represents, or any necessary preconditions. An agent would need additional context to invoke it correctly.

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 provides no parameter-level semantics. It does not explain the meaning or relationship of name, doc_name, or file_path beyond a loose hint from 'target document' and 'STEP file'. The description completely fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 action ('Import') and resource ('a STEP file'), and the format distinction separates it from import_stl/export_step. However, 'target document' is vague and does not explicitly clarify whether it means the current active document or the optional doc_name parameter.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or any prerequisites such as whether an existing document must be open. The only usage signal is the implicit meaning of 'import', which is minimal.

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