import_cad_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It describes the three-step pipeline (detect format, convert, import), but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., temporary files, performance impact), error handling (e.g., unsupported formats), or state changes in Blender (e.g., whether it overwrites existing objects). The description is adequate but not comprehensive for a complex import tool.

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 relatively concise, using a short introductory sentence followed by a bulleted list of pipeline steps. Each sentence serves a purpose, but the bullet points could be more brief (e.g., combining steps). It is front-loaded with the key action, but the list format is efficient and scannable.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main workflow adequately. It explains the multi-step process and the parameters involved. However, it lacks context about conversion tool dependencies (e.g., mayo, freecad must be installed) and potential error scenarios. The output schema likely describes return values, so that gap is covered.

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 has 100% description coverage for all 8 parameters, providing clear syntax and defaults. The description adds a pipeline context but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, it does not explain how 'conversion_tool' options differ or when to adjust 'scale_factor'. Given high schema coverage, 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's purpose: importing CAD files (STEP, IGES) into Blender with automatic conversion. It specifies the verb 'Import' and the resource 'CAD files', and the pipeline steps distinguish it from sibling tools like blender_import, which handle general imports. This provides strong differentiation.

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 implies usage for CAD files but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., blender_import for non-CAD, or other conversion tools). It lacks guidance on prerequisites (e.g., conversion tools must be installed) or when not to use it. The pipeline steps give context, but explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use information is missing.

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