postman_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden yet only discloses that it generates Markdown. It says nothing about which project the import lands in, overwrite/idempotency behavior, failure modes, or auth requirements for file access.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded and no wasted words.

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 simple two-param import with no output schema, the description covers the input and rough output, but omits target location (project scoping) and error/overwrite behavior an agent would want before invoking a mutation.

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 filePath and confirmFileAccess are already documented including the 'must be true' guard. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Import a Postman Collection v2 JSON file') plus the resulting output ('structured Markdown API reference'). It clearly differs from swagger_import by naming Postman v2, though it does not explicitly call out the sibling.

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 implies the use case (importing a Postman collection for docs generation) but gives no explicit when/when-not or direction toward swagger_import or project_import as alternatives. Usage is left to inference.

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