blender_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It explains supported operations, CAD conversion, and mesh quality control, but it omits side effects (e.g., does it clear existing imports?, impact on scene objects) and potential limitations like performance impact or file size constraints.

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 well-organized with sections for general operations and CAD features, making it easy to scan. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Slightly verbose due to repeated details (e.g., CAD conversion list), but still efficient.

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 10 parameters, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers all major operations and CAD-specific behavior. Minor gaps: no mention of return value format or scene interaction (e.g., does it report success/failure?).

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 high (90%), so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the 'operation' parameter by listing its variants and describes CAD-specific parameters (cad_conversion_tool, mesh_quality). However, it does not elaborate on parameters like 'use_custom_normals' or 'import_shading' beyond the schema, and some parameters (asset_name) lack description in both schema and description.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: importing 3D files into Blender. It specifies supported operations (import_[format], import_cad, link_asset) and lists formats (FBX, OBJ, GLTF, CAD), distinguishing it from siblings like blender_export and import_cad_file.

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?

Description provides clear context on when to use different operations (import_[format], import_cad, link_asset) and highlights CAD conversion features. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for specific cases (e.g., using import_cad_file separately), leaving some ambiguity.

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