import_glb_asset

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions importing with components and optional normalization, but fails to disclose side effects such as scene modification, collection creation (despite a collection_name parameter), or whether existing assets are overwritten. The absence of any statement about safety or prerequisites leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the optional normalization is stated clearly. Every sentence carries meaningful information without waste.

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?

Given the complexity of importing a 3D asset, the description leaves many operational details unaddressed: it does not mention output formats (though an output schema exists), prerequisites (e.g., Blender running), error handling, or the impact on the current scene. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the full context of the operation.

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 explain all parameters. It implicitly covers glb_path ('GLB/glTF asset') and normalize_size ('normalize its largest world dimension'), but completely omits collection_name, which is a parameter. The partial coverage does not 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 a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('GLB/glTF asset'), and lists the included components (PBR materials, armature, skin weights, animation clips). It distinguishes the tool from sibling inspection and animation tools by stating the import action explicitly.

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 the tool is for importing assets, which is clear from the title and action, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or when not to, nor does it name alternatives. Given the sibling list, an agent could infer usage, but no direct guidance is provided.

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