import_model

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

Discloses defaults that differ from the raw API, the post-import scene re-read, and the exact failure mode IMPORT_PRODUCED_EMPTY_SCENE with a 'do not retry' instruction. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the basic readOnly/destructive annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each adding essential information: purpose, path requirement, default/unit guidance, and failure behavior. No filler, and the most important constraints are front-loaded.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow, output shape, and a critical failure mode. It is not fully complete because some parameter semantics are absent, but combined with the schema it gives an agent enough to call the tool successfully.

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 only 22%, and the description compensates for file, units, and repair_behavior with meaningful guidance. However, it leaves several parameters (name, scale, position, split_multi_model_file) unexplained, so it only partially bridges the coverage gap.

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 first sentence names the action (import), the resource (model file), supported formats (STL, OBJ, 3MF, STEP), and target (scene), and the return value (model with id). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling model operations even without naming them.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: file must be absolute, units should be INCHES for inch files or DETECTED to let PreForm guess, and malformed files should not be retried. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear.

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