document_import_postscript

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

With only destructiveHint=false in the annotations, the description carries the burden and adds useful guardrail context: the source must be workspace-local and trusted, output is sanitized, and no arbitrary arguments are accepted. It does not, however, disclose what sanitizeMode or dependencyPolicy actually change, whether existing outputPath/manifestPath contents are overwritten, or how expectedRevision concurrency failures behave.

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 tight sentences with the operation and scope front-loaded; the second sentence's format/argument restriction is a meaningful guardrail rather than filler. Slightly dense phrasing ('observed local Inkscape capability') costs a little, but there is no waste.

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?

Although an output schema exists so return values need not be described, an 8-parameter, 6-required import tool with a nested policy object and a revision token is under-documented when the description explains none of the optional knobs or failure modes. It is enough to identify the tool but not enough to invoke it confidently.

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 8 parameters, including a nested dependencyPolicy object, two enums, and a concurrency token, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at path/format/workspaceId ('one trusted workspace-local EPS or PostScript file') but says nothing about sanitizeMode, dependencyPolicy, outputPath, manifestPath, or expectedRevision semantics.

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 gives a specific verb (imports) and resource (one trusted workspace-local EPS or PostScript file) and states the resulting artifacts (sanitized SVG plus conversion manifest). The explicit format restriction distinguishes it from the many sibling importers (document_import_svg, document_import_pdf, document_import_emf, document_import_raster) without needing to name them.

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: the agent can infer this is the importer for EPS/PS sources only, and the 'never accepts arbitrary native formats or arguments' line functions as a partial when-not clause. There is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over document_import or document_import_capabilities, and no prerequisites (e.g., that Inkscape must be available) are called out.

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