Import definitions XML

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description delivers the context that makes that risk actionable: dry-run by default, what the conflict policy does, and the exact values each policy accepts. This is richer behavioral disclosure than the annotations alone provide, with no contradiction.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the dry-run default, followed by policy details. Dense but every sentence carries information; the conflict enumeration is slightly compressed but readable.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, yet the description still summarizes commit output (created/removed). Combined with kind and conflict semantics, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the undocumented 'port' and lack of a stated when-to-use condition leave small gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does a lot: kind values, per-kind conflict enums, item_conflict values, and the dry_run default. The 'port' parameter is never mentioned, which is the one gap.

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 ('Import a Property Manager ... or Classification Manager ... XML file') and distinguishes the two operating modes by kind, so the agent knows exactly what the tool acts on. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from closer siblings like edit_property_definitions or import_issues_bcf, keeping it short of a 5.

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 makes the operating context plain: dry-run is the default, and it tells the agent what the dry-run reports (new vs colliding names) and what committing returns. It still does not state when to prefer this over direct definition editing, so no explicit exclusions are given.

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