import_master

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the original .xlsx is left untouched (non-destructive) and explains file naming behavior. However, it lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or what happens if the output file already exists. The description is adequate but could be richer given no annotations.

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 8 sentences, well-structured with a clear lead sentence, then usage context, then parameter details, then return value. It is concise for the information provided, with no redundant or verbose phrasing. A minor improvement could be grouping the parameter details more tightly.

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 2 parameters (1 required) and an output schema, the description covers the main action, usage scenario, parameter constraints, and return type. It lacks details on error handling or side effects beyond non-destructiveness, but this is acceptable for a simple conversion tool.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: xlsx_path requires absolute path, existence, .xlsx extension, and can be outside working directory; target_name must follow the naming convention '[MASTER]' and '.nsm' and defaults to source basename. This goes well beyond the schema's property titles and default, making parameters self-documenting.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Convert an existing .xlsx master into a .nsm in the working directory.' It uses a specific verb ('Convert') and resource ('xlsx master to .nsm'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like export_master_xlsx (reverse operation) and create_empty_master (creation from scratch).

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 advises use 'once at the start of a session' and explains that the Local MCP edition operates on .nsm files exclusively, so this tool bridges the gap. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling context and the opposite action (export_master_xlsx) provide implied guidance. The explanation is clear but could be more explicit about exclusions.

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