import_obj

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a scene-modifying operation. The description adds the error condition ('fails if file missing') and mentions merge support, which adds some value. However, it does not disclose what happens when merge=false (e.g., whether the current scene is replaced), a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and add the key error behavior. Bilingual formatting is acceptable and does not add bloat. No filler or redundant information.

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 destructive import tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description should clarify the effect of merge=false (e.g., does it replace the current scene or create a new one?) and any other side effects. It only states failure on missing file and merge support, leaving critical behavior ambiguous, which could lead to incorrect tool invocation.

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 both parameters (path and merge) already have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter detail beyond what's in the schema; its mention of merge is redundant. This matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 it imports a Wavefront OBJ, a specific format distinct from the FBX/GLTF/USD imports. It also notes the failure behavior when the file is missing, which adds precision. However, it does not explicitly contrast with import_merge_scene, leaving a slight ambiguity for a sibling that also deals with merging.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like import_fbx or import_merge_scene. The statement 'merge is supported' hints at a capability but does not explain when to choose this over import_merge_scene, nor any prerequisites or conditions for use.

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