Import a diagram

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a write that is not destructive. The description adds 'Validated and sanitized' which is useful behavioral context about input processing, and 'Free (no AI)' clarifies cost/processing traits. No contradictions with annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence provides distinct value: the first explains what the tool does, the second adds validation and cost details. 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?

For a moderately simple import tool with 4 parameters fully described in schema and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and safety profile. It does not mention error handling or file size limits, but these are not essential for an agent to correctly invoke the tool given the schema. The context signals and siblings help further, and the description adequately positions this tool relative to them.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions (xml, title, diagram_type, cloud_provider). The description's mention of 'draw.io mxGraphModel/mxfile XML' reinforces the xml parameter but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 ('Import'), a specific resource ('draw.io (mxGraphModel/mxfile) XML document'), and the outcome ('as a new diagram in your account'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like generate_diagram or edit_diagram, which focus on creation or modification rather than importing existing XML.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a user has an existing draw.io XML document to bring into the account. It also notes 'Free (no AI)' which hints at a non-AI alternative to generate_diagram. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, so there is room for a more explicit exclusion.

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