import_previs_review_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and discloses meaningful traits: imports are immutable, each import produces a distinct snapshot, old annotations never transfer silently, and Blender export runs with automatic Python disabled and without saving/rendering the original. It does not state permissions, failure modes, or idempotency behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraint paragraphs. Every sentence conveys a distinct constraint (path base, export safety, local-only, snapshot uniqueness). Slightly dense but no filler.

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 mutation/import tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits what is returned (e.g., how the new snapshot is identified for later annotation), which matters for chaining. It also leaves the 'name' parameter unexplained.

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%, and the description only adds semantics for one of the two parameters: scene_path must be relative to PREVIS_WORKSPACE_DIR. The optional 'name' parameter is neither explained in the schema nor in the description, leaving part of the surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: import a local .blend/.glb as an immutable Review Room snapshot. This is clearly distinguished from sibling tools like list_previs_review_scenes (listing) and inspect_previs_scene (reading an existing 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?

Explicitly scopes to LOCAL scenes and warns that a remote scene must first have its exported GLB transferred ('Never substitute local data for a remote project'). It does not name the concrete sibling tool to use for the remote path, so guidance is clear but not fully routed.

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