Import Mesh

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, and the description adds that it creates a mesh body and returns the mesh name and bounding box. It does not disclose further side effects such as whether repeated imports create duplicates or how invalid files are handled, so it meets but does not exceed expectations.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action, formats, result, and return value; the second provides usage context. Every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the essential return value and primary use case, which is important because there is no output schema. It could be more complete by noting potential error conditions or component scoping, but those are not critical for a simple import tool and the schema covers the parameters.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds supported file formats ('STL, OBJ, or 3MF') and the ultimate use of the mesh, but it does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Import a mesh file (STL, OBJ, or 3MF) as a mesh body.' It also states the output (mesh name and bounding box) and a clear use case (reference geometry), which differentiates it from sibling import/export and geometry-creation tools.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use signal: 'Use for reference geometry (e.g. exported SketchUp model).' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but for a straightforward import tool the stated use case is sufficient to guide selection.

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