document_import_svg

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden and it does disclose the substantive effect: scripts, event handlers, and forbidden external references are removed, and the result is a NEW document (non-destructive). It still does not elaborate on what the 'selected policy' does or any permission requirements, but the sanitization behavior is concrete and useful.

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, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the sanitization behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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, and the behavioral clause is present. However, for a 5-parameter mutating import (4 required, including a revision/concurrency token and a policy enum) with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key parameter semantics undocumented.

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% and the description names no parameters. It gestures at 'selected policy' (sanitizeMode), 'workspace-local' (path/workspaceId), and 'new document', but leaves expectedRevision, outputPath, and the sanitizeMode enum values unexplained, so it fails to 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 ('Imports') with a precise resource ('one workspace-local SVG') and a defined output ('a new sanitized SVG document'). The SVG/format specificity inherently distinguishes it from siblings like document_import_raster, document_import_pdf, document_import_emf, and document_import_postscript.

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 never states when to choose this tool over the generic document_import or the other format-specific importers, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is the 'workspace-local' qualifier, which is a scope detail rather than usage guidance.

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