ms_gui_import_current

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool queues an import and changes the current document, which implies a state-changing operation. It also warns against XSD re-imports, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose what 'queue' means (e.g., asynchronous behavior, whether the import can fail silently, or how to check status via ms_status).

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 action and outcome, followed by a useful exclusion. It is concise and every sentence earns its place, though the second sentence could arguably be folded into usage guidance without losing clarity.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key pitfall, but leaves significant gaps: parameter meanings, asynchronous queue behavior, and how to confirm success. It is adequate for a simple import action but not fully complete for an agent that needs to invoke it correctly with optional parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate for the four parameters. It only explains the purpose of the 'file' parameter implicitly ('Import external source files') and gives no meaning for exportFile, ballAndStick, or documentName. The description adds almost no parameter-level semantics beyond what the bare schema already shows.

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 ('Queue an import'), a resource ('the open Materials Studio GUI project'), and a clear outcome ('make the imported document the current document'). It also distinguishes itself from XSD re-imports, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like ms_gui_download_cif_import_current and ms_gui_find_cif_import_current, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 gives clear context: use it to import external source files into the open GUI project. It also provides an explicit exclusion: do not import XSD files that MS-MCP just exported from the current GUI document. It doesn't name alternative tools for those cases, but the when/when-not guidance is present.

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