pcm_import_parameters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden, and it delivers. It discloses the write nature ('MODIFIES PROTECTION SETTINGS'), the snapshot-before-write behavior, the pre-validation step, the environmental gate (PCM_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES), the confirm flag requirement, and the unavailable signature-bypass option. This is exemplary transparency for a dangerous mutation tool.

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?

Well-structured and efficient. Bold warning sentence gets attention, prerequisites and behavior are listed concisely, and the safety guidance is clear. Every sentence adds essential value with no filler or redundancy.

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 dangerous mutation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description covers safety, prerequisites, workflow, and exclusions (signature bypass unavailable). It doesn't describe the output schema semantics, but since an output schema exists, that burden is satisfied by structured data. Slightly incomplete on which IED the import targets and how technical_key identifies it, but strong overall.

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. However, the description doesn't define the individual parameters (project, technical_key, param_file) beyond what their titles imply. The confirm flag's role is explained ('confirm=true') but no detail on how param_file should be formatted or what technical_key means. The description adds context about the workflow but doesn't explain the parameters semantically. Baseline 3 is appropriate since it doesn't hugely add param-level meaning.

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 it imports a parameter file into one IED of a project, with a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pcm_import_bulk_parameters (which imports into multiple IEDs) and pcm_import_scd by explicitly noting 'one IED' and mentioning the signature-bypass option limitation not available. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls just 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?

Excellent guidance. It explicitly states the environmental prerequisite (PCM_MCP_ALLOW_WRITES=1 and confirm=true), says validation runs beforehand so deviations are reported, and instructs the agent to read validation output and agree with the user before confirming. It also warns this is a write operation on protection settings. This is explicit when/how-to-use guidance with clear prerequisites.

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