Import property definitions (XML)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: 'One undo step' and the exact return shape {created, groupsCreated, definitionCount}. It doesn't cover permission/prerequisite requirements, but for a non-destructive import that is a minor gap.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and format before the input forms and return value. Every sentence carries information; 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 naming the return fields, and it discloses the format constraint and undo behavior an agent needs. It could go further on prerequisites for the xml-vs-filePath choice, but it is complete enough to invoke 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 the schema already documents xml, filePath, undoName, and the conflictPolicy enum thoroughly. The description only restates the xml/filePath alternative and adds nothing on undoName or conflictPolicy semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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) and resource (property groups and definitions) and pins the exact source format (Property Manager Export XML with <BuildingInformation><PropertyDefinitionGroups>). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling import_classifications_xml, which handles a different resource, as well as from create_property_definitions.

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 tells the agent the two valid input forms ('XML text or a local file path'), which is useful operational context, and the stated format constraint implies when the tool applies. But it never states when to prefer this over create_property_definitions/modify_property_definitions or when not to use it, so usage is left implied.

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