import_fbx

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

Annotations only flag the operation as destructive/not read-only; the description adds the exact destructive consequence (replaces the current scene by default) and the missing-file failure behavior. It also clarifies the non-destructive merge=true path.

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?

Two short sentences cover behavior and error in both languages with no filler. Key information appears before the redundant English repetition.

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 two-parameter import tool with a destructive annotation, the description sufficiently covers what happens with merge on/off and the failure case. It does not need an output schema explanation, though it could mention what result or success signal is returned.

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 path and merge are already documented. The description mainly restates the merge behavior; the only additive detail is the missing-file error for path, which is more behavioral than semantic.

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'), resource ('FBX'), the two behaviors (merge or replace), and the failure condition. It is immediately distinguishable from import_obj/import_gltf/import_usd and from import_merge_scene via its FBX-specific scope.

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?

It says to use it for FBX imports and explains the merge/replace modes, so usage context is implied by the format. However, it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use this tool, unlike an explicit routing statement.

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