Import modules from files

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the dry-run-by-default contract, that unmatched file names create new modules, that document modules like ThisWorkbook are written but never created, and that an unchanged plan skips the save. These details materially affect how the agent calls the tool and are not derivable from the destructive/idempotent hints alone.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and the preview default, followed by edge cases (module creation, document modules, no-op saves) and a next-step pointer. No sentence is redundant.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, and it covers the full behavioral envelope: default preview, write gate, creation rules, and follow-up. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 each parameter (apply, file_path, source_folder, allow_protected, allow_invalidate_signature) is already documented in the schema. The description reinforces apply semantics but adds no field-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Reads .bas and .cls files from a folder back into an Office file's VBA project and saves it'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling xlide_export_modules. An agent can identify the direction of the operation (files → VBA project) immediately.

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?

Explains the default preview behavior and the apply=true gate, and routes the agent to xlide_analyze after a change. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over xlide_write_module or xlide_edit_module for single-module edits.

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