Import a Gaussian splat

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses size-dependent behavior, sync/async return shapes, error condition (422 not_a_gaussian_splat), and the resulting source tag, going well beyond the schema.

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?

Three dense sentences pack scope, size thresholds, return shapes, and error behavior without waste. Key action is 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 2-parameter upload tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values, async polling, and failure modes. An agent could invoke and handle both success paths correctly.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that path must be local .ply/.spz and by warning about non-Gaussian PLY rejection, which the schema alone wouldn't convey.

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 ('Import'), resource ('local .ply/.spz Gaussian splat'), and result ('as a scene'), with the source tag distinguishing it from other upload tools. Sibling names like workspace_upload_video make the differentiation clear.

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 clarifies the workflow for small vs large files and directs the agent to workspace_job_wait for polling large uploads. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the format and source tag make selection unambiguous.

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