Import favorites

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description goes beyond them by disclosing the return shape including the optional firstConflict field and the Teamwork prerequisite of reserving the 'Favorites' object set, which is real operational context an agent cannot get from 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?

Three tight clauses with no filler: source of the file, output shape, and the Teamwork prerequisite, in that order. Slightly telegraphic ('Output: {...}') but efficient and front-loaded.

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 present, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, and it covers the Teamwork reservation prerequisite. What remains unstated, such as behavior when the path does not exist or the file is malformed, is minor for a scoped import 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 100%, so all four parameters including the conflictPolicy enum are fully documented in the schema. The description only adds the firstConflict mention, which is about output rather than parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource ('Imports favorites') and identifies the exact source artifact (a .prf file produced by Archicad / export_favorites), which cleanly separates it from the sibling export_favorites. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 tells the agent the file must come from export_favorites, which is a useful precondition and implicitly frames when this tool applies. It stops short of naming alternatives such as create_favorite or stating what to do when the file is absent.

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