document_import_raster

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries most of the burden and does it well: byte-sniffing, megapixel bounding, embed-vs-link behavior, and the conversion manifest are all disclosed. It omits what expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency) implies for behavior on a stale revision, which is a notable gap for a write tool.

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 packed sentences with the format scope, output artifact, and safety constraint front-loaded; every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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. However, for a 5-required-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing explanation of expectedRevision, outputPath, and manifestPath leaves the agent guessing at required semantics.

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 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the embedding enum values ('embed the approved bytes or retain one workspace-local relative link') but leaves path, outputPath, manifestPath, workspaceId, and especially the required expectedRevision undocumented in any human-readable form.

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?

Specific verb ('Imports') plus a precisely enumerated resource set (BMP/TIFF/TGA/PNG/JPEG/GIF/WebP) and a clearly stated outcome (a new SVG document with raster wrapper and conversion manifest). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling importers (document_import_svg, document_import_postscript, document_import_emf, document_import_pdf) by format.

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?

Format restrictions and the 'never fetches a URL' exclusion give a clear context for use and implicitly route the agent among the import siblings. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over document_import or document_import_capabilities, so it stops short of full when/alternatives guidance.

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