import_xml

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does disclose import_mode semantics (overwrite default vs keep_existing vs rename), warns that 'Control Expert validates the schema strictly', and reveals that build_project will list per-section errors to fix. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or the direct success/failure return of the call itself, but given the burden it carries, the disclosure is solid rather than complete.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place for a 5-parameter, multi-workflow tool. It front-loads the core purpose, then parameters, then the prescriptive authoring workflow, then the template tip. No filler or tautology.

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?

Given the high complexity (multiple kinds, dependencies on sibling tools) and the thin schema with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, all parameter semantics, workflow ordering, and alternatives. The residual gap is that it never states what import_xml directly returns on success/failure (the agent must infer error handling from the build_project step), and it assumes an already-open project is understood.

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 fully compensates: it enumerates and explains the kind values ('section' requires task, 'project' is a generic exchange-file import), distinguishes xml_content vs file_path as two delivery mechanisms, and documents import_mode with its default and allowed values. This exceeds what the bare schema provides and directly aids correct invocation.

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 ('Import') plus its resource ('Control Expert XML into the open project') and names the primary scope ('the main way to write LD/FBD/SFC program logic and bulk content'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly routing Structured Text authoring to write_st_logic instead, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit use-context is given: for kind='section' it prescribes an ordered workflow (get_language_reference → validate_xml → import), names the alternative for ST (write_st_logic, 'no XML needed'), and mandates the follow-up build_project step. It even suggests export_xml / read_section as a template prerequisite. The when-versus-alternative guidance is complete and unambiguous.

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