Roblox Import Asset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the automatic claiming side effect when a cookie is present but does not cover error handling, state changes upon import failure, or whether the operation is destructive. The description is partially transparent but not fully comprehensive.

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 two concise sentences: the first clearly states the core functionality, and the second adds conditional behavior about the cookie. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the overall process. However, it could be more complete by specifying what happens when the asset is already owned or when the cookie is missing. Still, for a straightforward import, it provides sufficient context.

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%, with each parameter (assetId, parentPath, waitForResponseMs) documented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—primarily the context of importing from the Roblox Creator Store and optional cookie-based claiming. 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 verb ('Import'), the resource ('public asset from the Roblox Creator Store'), and the action ('place it under a parent'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like roblox_create_instance or roblox_search_asset3d.

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 mentions the optional ROBLOX_COOKIE for automatic claiming, providing context on when that setup is beneficial. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like roblox_search_asset3d (searching) or roblox_create_instance (creating from scratch), leaving some ambiguity.

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