document_import_emf

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does add real context: the conversion runs through the local Inkscape capability, output is sanitized, a conversion manifest is produced, and only a single trusted workspace-local file is processed. It is silent on failure behavior, revision conflicts, and permission requirements, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the scope guardrail second. Nothing is repeated from the name or schema and no clause is wasted.

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 no explanation, but for a 7-parameter mutation-ish tool with 0% schema descriptions and no annotations beyond destructiveHint, the description leaves too much unsaid: expectedRevision semantics, dependencyPolicy behavior, sanitizeMode tradeoffs, and error/conflict handling are all absent.

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, including a nested dependencyPolicy object and a regex-constrained expectedRevision. The description only obliquely gestures at workspaceId ('workspace-local'), path ('EMF file'), and sanitizeMode ('sanitized'), and never explains expectedRevision (concurrency guard), manifestPath, outputPath, or dependencyPolicy. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 specific verb and resource ('Imports one trusted workspace-local EMF file') plus the concrete outputs (sanitized SVG and conversion manifest), which is enough to tell it apart from document_import_svg or document_import_raster. It does not, however, name any sibling importer explicitly, so the differentiation is carried by the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: one file, workspace-local, trusted, EMF only. The closing clause 'never accepts arbitrary native formats or arguments' functions as a soft when-not, steering agents toward other import tools for other formats, but no alternative is named and no prerequisites (Inkscape availability) are given.

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