import_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it describes scaling, default position, how SVG layers/defs/clashing ids are handled, image linking/embedding, dpi defaults, object_fit options, and relative path resolution. This gives the agent a clear picture of side effects and defaults beyond structured data.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose and then details file-type-specific behavior efficiently. Every sentence appears to earn its place, though the density could be improved with some structure for easier scanning.

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 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits explanation for several key parameters (id, layer, doc_id, parent, preview). It thoroughly covers file-handling behavior but is incomplete for an agent that needs to understand all inputs to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It explains 'at' (default 0,0), 'width'/'height' scaling behavior, 'embed' (true stores pixels), and 'object_fit' values, but it leaves 'id', 'layer', 'doc_id', 'parent', and 'preview' completely undefined. The description adds meaning for some parameters but misses many.

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 ('Place a file') and resource ('into the current document'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like document_open for whole documents and 'repeat rows_path' for data rows. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and when it is not the right choice.

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 gives explicit alternatives: 'For whole documents use document_open; for data rows see repeat rows_path.' This directly tells the agent when to use this tool versus its siblings, leaving no ambiguity.

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