creator_import_inp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It prominently discloses the destructive nature ('THIS REPLACES THE CURRENT PROJECT'), which is the most important behavioral trait for an import tool. It could also mention undo behavior or error handling, but the key risk is clearly communicated.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the core action, specifies the format, and highlights the destructive consequence with a caps-lock warning. Every word earns its place, and the structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is imported, the target format, and the side effect on the current project. It does not explain post-import behavior (e.g., project state or undo), but given the simplicity and the clear warning, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'path', including its type and meaning. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema specifies, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Import') with a specific resource ('Inochi2D .inp puppet') and outcome ('as a new project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling import tools like creator_import_psd or creator_import_kra. The format and target are explicit, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (importing a .inp file) and adds a critical warning that it replaces the current project. It does not explicitly list alternative tools for other formats, which would make it a 5, but the naming and context make the usage scenario evident.

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