gaihen_prepare_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the important out-of-band mechanism (writes a file that the user must manually process via a .bat) rather than mutating the drawing directly. It does not disclose overwrite behavior for the outbox file, error/failure modes, or prerequisites on the Jw_cad side.

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 no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the follow-up workflow detail. Nothing is padded, though it could be slightly more structured about parameters.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the key mechanic but leaves parameter meaning undocumented. It is enough to understand the workflow, but not enough to invoke it correctly with confidence.

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 4 parameters. The description addresses 'drawing' and 'raw entities' loosely, but the 'notice' and 'exchange' parameters receive no explanation at all, and there is no format guidance for the entity objects. It only partially compensates for a complete 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?

The description states a specific action (place a drawing or raw entities) into a named target (outbox/IMPORT.txt), which is more concrete than a bare restatement. It implies the tool's role in a prepare-then-import workflow, distinguishing it from read/query siblings. However it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like drawing_import_jww or scan_vector_import.

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 lays out the two-step workflow (prepare here, then user runs JWMCP_import.bat in Jw_cad), which implies when the tool applies. But there is no explicit when-to-use-vs-alternative guidance, and with sibling import tools present the agent gets no routing signal for choosing among them.

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