proj_import_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does enumerate the main side effects: copying the file, adding it to the project, and saving the project file. It also describes the return value, but omits conflict/overwrite behavior and permission requirements.

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?

The description is front-loaded and structured with Args and Returns sections. The Returns section is somewhat redundant because an output schema exists, but overall it remains efficient and readable.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the description supplies the critical parameter semantics plus the primary mutation behavior. It is still missing guidance on conflicts, overwrite behavior, and alternatives, but is adequate for a focused import operation.

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%, but the description compensates by documenting source_path as a full path and giving example document types such as SchDoc and PcbDoc. It does not clarify relative paths, validation, or whether the file must exist.

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 verb and resource: importing a document into the focused project from an external path. It makes the operation distinct from project creation or opening, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as proj_add_document.

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 phrase 'from an external path' implies this tool is for files outside the project, but the description does not state when to use it instead of proj_add_document or app_create_document. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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