import_drawing

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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive write (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds real behavior: strict-vs-preserve conversion semantics, native snapshot merge/conflict reporting, dryRun as a non-writing validation mode, and a revision precondition for existing files. It does not say what happens to an existing file's prior contents on overwrite or what the call returns, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Roughly six terse sentences, front-loaded with what can be imported, and each sentence carries distinct information about policy, merging, validation, and revision. The telegraphic style and the mid-description 'Discover drawfather://interchange first' aside reduce readability slightly.

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 an 8-parameter destructive write with no output schema, the description covers conversion policy, conflict handling, and concurrency but never says what the import returns or how preview/includeSource results are surfaced. Combined with the low schema coverage, an agent can call it but cannot fully predict output or the semantics of several parameters.

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 only 13% (basically just `name`), so the description must compensate and it only partially does: it clarifies the `format` enum values, `dryRun`, `options.policy` (strict/preserve), and `expectedRevision`. It leaves the large nested `preview` object (ids/crop/width/height/background) and `options.scope`, `options.geometry`, `options.embedNative`, and `includeSource` completely unexplained.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb (Import) plus the exact accepted source formats (Mermaid flowchart/sequence/ER, Excalidraw JSON, single-page draw.io XML), which separates it from the compose_* and edit_* siblings by verb and input domain. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for a given scenario, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives conditional guidance: strict blocks unsupported content vs preserve accepts reported losses, dryRun validates without writing, and existing files require expectedRevision. It also directs the agent to discover drawfather://interchange first. No explicit statement of when to import versus compose/create from scratch, which is the main gap.

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