import_parts

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that a file is written, the default write location, that units are mm, that LightBurn groups stay rigid, and that original artwork/settings are retained for lbrn2 export. It stops short of stating overwrite behavior or permission/workspace constraints on a mutating 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?

Four dense sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core action and ending with the actionable handoff to nest. Slightly dense with behavioral detail packed in, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's enumeration of return values (part ids, areas, bounds, layer kerf, import warnings) is essential and present. For a 9-parameter mutating tool with no annotations, the main remaining gap is write/permission semantics rather than return behavior.

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%, so all nine parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the '(mm)' unit note and the 'one LightBurn project' constraint, which the schema largely covers; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (SVG/DXF outlines or a LightBurn lbrn2 project) into a named target (part library, in mm). The scope is precise enough that an agent can tell it apart from nest/export_layout/validate_layout without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a clear workflow context: this is the upfront import step and 'Use the ids in nest requests' names the downstream tool. However, it never states when NOT to use it or how it relates to the other siblings (estimate_sheets, validate_layout, export_layout), so the routing guidance is one-directional.

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