pob_import_xml

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and 'Заменяет текущую сборку' restates rather than extends that. It does add one genuinely new behavioral fact – that the XML is parsed and computed through the Lua engine – but is silent on failure behavior, whether a partially valid XML leaves the build in a broken state, and whether the current build is recoverable.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the side effect. There is no filler, though the phrasing is so terse that some useful detail was likely cut rather than tightening.

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 destructive whole-build replacement with no output schema, the description should say what comes back after the Lua calculation (build stats, validation errors) and whether the old build can be restored. The compute-through-Lua note helps, but the return/outcome picture remains unclear.

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?

Only one parameter exists and its schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. 'Полный XML' adds the useful semantic that the entire document is expected rather than a fragment, but nothing is said about the 4 MB size limit, encoding, or what an invalid XML looks like.

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 names a specific verb pair ('Загрузить ... и рассчитать') and a specific resource ('полный XML PathOfBuilding2'), and the phrase 'Заменяет текущую сборку' distinguishes it from the granular siblings like pob_add_item or pob_set_config. It falls short of a 5 because it does not name the most confusable sibling, pob_export_xml, or pob_create_build explicitly as the alternative path.

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?

'Загрузить полный XML' implies this is for whole-build import rather than incremental edits, which de facto routes agents away from the add/set tools. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on where a valid PathOfBuilding2 XML comes from, and no stated alternative or precondition.

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