fluig_process_import_xml

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It labels the tool as WRITE and STRUCTURAL, mentions replacing a SOAP sequence, and warns about trusting after validation. This adequately discloses the operational nature and potential pitfalls.

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 'WRITE, STRUCTURAL.' No extraneous information; every word is efficient and purposeful.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, file type, API replacement, and validation tip. It is sufficiently complete, though it could elaborate on success/failure outcomes.

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 100%, so each parameter has a description in the schema. The description adds context like 'Contents of the .ecm30.xml' and the confirm flag requirement, but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as deploying a process definition XML file, specifying the file type (.ecm30.xml) and the API (v2 REST). It distinguishes from the SOAP sequence and sibling tools like fluig_process_export_xml.

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?

It states that one call replaces the SOAP sequence, indicating when to use this tool over alternatives. It also advises validating with a round trip before trusting, providing practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare to other deploy tools.

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