Import classifications (XML)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), but the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses 'One undo step' (reversibility) and the return shape. Conflict-handling behavior is left to the schema rather than the prose.

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?

Three tight sentences with the primary purpose front-loaded, followed by invocation modes and the return contract. No filler or repetition.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned object ({systems: [{guid, name, editionVersion, new, itemCount, ...}]}). Combined with the disclosed undo behavior, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this import 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 100%, so all five parameters including the two enum conflict policies are already documented structurally. The description restates the xml/filePath duality but adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Imports) plus resource (classification systems) and names the concrete source formats (Archicad Classification Manager export, Uniclass, OmniClass). This clearly distinguishes it from the single-system sibling create_classification_system without needing schema inspection.

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?

Explains the two acceptable input modes ('Give the XML text or a local file path'), which is actionable invocation guidance. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this bulk import over the sibling create_classification_system/create_classification_items path, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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