Import Bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) that is not destructive (destructiveHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false). The description adds that the .bkmx file must reside within a controlled input root, which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations, but it does not explain merge/replace behavior or permissions.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, clear, and free of wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could include minimal parameter context without becoming bloated.

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 0% schema description coverage on three required parameters and no output schema explanation needed, the description is too sparse. It omits what aprx_path is, how map_name and input_path relate to the project structure, and any usage constraints, leaving gaps for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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% for all three required parameters. The description only implicitly covers input_path (.bkmx file) and map_name (map), leaving aprx_path entirely unexplained and providing no format or syntax guidance for any parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: importing bookmarks into a map from a .bkmx file within the controlled input root. It is clear and distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_bookmark or export_bookmarks, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_bookmark for manual creation or import_document for other import types. It provides only the source file context, with no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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