document_import

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden, and it usefully discloses that SVGZ expansion is hard-limited, no external resource is fetched, and output is sanitized. It stops short of explaining concurrency/expectedRevision behavior or what happens if outputPath/manifestPath already exist.

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 tightly written sentences with no waste, front-loading the core action and then the safety constraints. Every clause adds 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the safety constraints are covered, but with 6 required parameters and zero schema coverage the definition leaves substantial mechanical detail (sanitizeMode default, revision checking, overwrite semantics) for the agent to infer.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate but largely does not. Only 'workspace-local', 'SVG or SVGZ' loosely map to path/workspaceId/format; sanitizeMode, expectedRevision, outputPath, and manifestPath semantics are left entirely to the schema.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource with scope ('Imports one workspace-local SVG or SVGZ') and states the output artifacts (sanitized SVG plus conversion manifest). This distinguishes it from raster/PDF/PostScript import siblings, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related document_import_svg 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite several competing import tools in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer that this applies to local SVG/SVGZ sources only.

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