Import / Merge Scene File

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It covers the core action (merge into active document), return value (newly-imported objects), and optional operations (reparent, rename). However, it omits details about side effects on existing scene content, error conditions (e.g., file not found, unsupported format), and whether all file types are treated equally. For a mutation tool, more transparency would be expected.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: file formats, internal method name, return value, chaining hints, and optional behaviors. No redundant or vague language.

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 tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers primary use cases but lacks details on return value structure, error handling, and behavior under edge cases (e.g., merging into an empty document, duplicate names). It is adequate for typical use but not fully comprehensive.

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 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds significant workflow context beyond the schema: it explains that the return value enables chaining with other tools and that the 'parent' and 'rename' parameters operate on the imported objects. This helps the agent understand how parameters integrate with the overall process.

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 tool merges an external file into the active document, lists supported formats (abc/fbx/obj/c4d/etc.), and distinguishes from siblings as the only import/merge tool. The verb 'Merge' and resource 'external file into active document' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explains that the returned objects can be chained with set_params, create_entity, or create_take, providing clear workflow guidance. It also mentions optional reparenting and renaming. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like open_document (which opens a new document) or warn about potential conflicts when merging.

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