editor_reimport_asset

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral effects. 'Force reimport' implies overwriting existing imported artifacts, but it does not state consequences like potential data loss, performance impact, or the need for the asset to exist. This is a significant gap for a mutating 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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices useful detail, making it more an under-specification than ideal conciseness.

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 force operation with one required parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits return behavior, error conditions, and any prerequisites (e.g., asset must exist). The tool appears to be a lower-risk operation, but the context is incomplete.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what 'path' refers to (e.g., filesystem path, resource path, relative/absolute) or any expected format. The sole parameter's meaning is left ambiguous beyond its name.

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 'Force reimport of an asset' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like editor_open_asset or editor_delete_asset by focusing on reimporting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when an asset's import settings have changed or when to prefer fix_missing_uids or validate_project. No context or exclusions are given.

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