feedbin_create_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does flag that this mutates Feedbin state, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the import runs asynchronously, whether it adds to or replaces existing subscriptions, or what the response contains.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the mutation warning sits right after the purpose statement. It is efficient, though the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

For a state-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description is too thin. An agent still lacks the async/polling workflow and any statement of what an OPML import actually changes in the account.

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?

The single parameter opml_xml has 0% schema description coverage, so the schema offers only the name and type. 'Body is XML' confirms the string is raw OPML markup, which is a small but real addition; there is no detail on expected OPML structure, size limits, or encoding.

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 ('Create an OPML import'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the read-oriented siblings list_imports and get_import. It stops short of naming those siblings as the follow-up path, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this versus list_imports or get_import, nor any note that an import is processed asynchronously and must be polled. The only implied usage comes from the verb 'Create', leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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