Import modules from files

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: preview-by-default, no writes until apply=true, automatic creation for unmatched filenames, and the rule that document modules are written but never created. This meaningfully informs an agent about side effects before invocation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the most important behavioral nuance and edge cases. No filler or redundant repetition of schema fields; every sentence earns its place.

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 description covers the core operation, default preview behavior, creation rules, and a follow-up action. The only notable gap is that it never states what happens to existing modules that have no corresponding file in the source folder, which is relevant given destructiveHint=true.

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 every parameter. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond restating the apply/preview behavior already present in the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('reads... back into') and resource ('an Office file's VBA project'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like xlide_export_modules by signaling the reverse direction of data flow.

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 clearly implies the primary use case: batch-importing .bas/.cls files from a folder into a VBA project. It gives workflow guidance ('After applying, call xlide_analyze') but does not explicitly name alternatives such as xlide_write_module, nor state when not to use this tool.

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