import_image

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that URLs must point to raw image bytes, that HTML pages are rejected with guidance, that x/y define the shape center, that aspect ratio is preserved when one dimension is given, and that shape_id is returned. It does not mention prerequisites such as an open document or behavior with an invalid local path, but the core behavior is well covered.

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?

The description is well structured: purpose first, then parameter details, then routing guidance. Every sentence adds useful information, and the formatting makes the source and sizing semantics easy to scan.

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 tool with six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is close to complete: it covers purpose, use cases, parameter semantics, caveats, and return value. The main gap is the unexplored page parameter, and there is no explicit statement about the document being open or the page context.

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. It richly explains source, x/y units and origin, and width/height scaling rules. However, the optional page parameter is not described at all, leaving one of the six parameters undocumented in text.

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 names a specific action and resource: 'Insert an external image ... onto the page as a shape.' It also clarifies the intended niche (custom icons with no Visio master, vendor logos), which distinguishes it from the sibling drop_shape/drop_shapes tools.

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?

Explicit guidance says to prefer built-in masters via drop_shape when Visio has the icon, and to use this tool only for the gaps. It also clarifies when a URL is appropriate versus when the user must download the file first, giving concrete decision rules.

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