import_asset

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites existing assets), potential failures, or requirements. This leaves the agent blind to behavioral implications of invoking the import.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and examples. There is no redundancy or unnecessary verbiage, making it appropriately concise for a simple import tool.

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's simplicity and complete schema coverage, the description still lacks context about expected outcomes, supported file formats' constraints, or error handling. Without an output schema, the description should clarify what happens after import, but it does not, leaving a notable gap.

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 100%, with each parameter already documented (source_file as a path and destination_path as a content directory). The description adds format examples but does not elaborate on parameter semantics or provide additional details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 imports external files into the project, using a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('external file... into the project'). It lists example formats (FBX, PNG, WAV) and distinctly contrasts with sibling tools like export_asset (reverse direction) and reimport_skeletal_mesh (specific to skeletal meshes).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. For example, it does not indicate whether this should be used for initial imports only, or how it relates to reimport tools. The agent must infer usage from context.

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