import_document

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

With annotations giving only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds real behavioral context: the original is kept immutable, nothing is uploaded (local-only), and every new file version is stored separately. That versioning and immutability detail is valuable beyond the 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?

A tight multi-clause sentence with the verb and format list front-loaded and no filler. Every clause conveys a distinct fact, though the structure is slightly telegraphic.

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?

No output schema exists, and the behavioral profile (immutable original, local-only, per-version storage) is reasonably covered. However, with three undocumented parameters and no usage routing, the definition is not complete enough to call correctly without inspecting the schema.

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 all three parameters (work_id, path, label), so the description carries the full burden. It only mentions file formats, leaving work_id, path, and the label default of 'manuscript' entirely unexplained.

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 clear verb (import) and resource (document) plus the supported formats (PDF/DOCX/PNG/JPG/MD/TXT), and specifies 'local'. This distinguishes it from upload-oriented siblings, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many siblings (import_references, download_fulltext, convert_document). 'Does not upload' implies a local-only context, but the agent must infer when to pick this over parse_local_pdf or import_references.

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