import_test_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and discloses a key behavior: unmodeled element types are preserved as UnknownElement nodes with original XML re-emitted as-is, rather than dropped. It also directs the agent to response fields for unrecognized elements, adding useful context beyond the schema.

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 two dense sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds important preservation behavior and response guidance, keeping the most relevant information 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?

The description covers purpose, preservation behavior, and points to response fields, which is especially useful given there is no output schema. However, it does not describe the full response shape or what happens after a successful import, leaving minor gaps.

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 both parameters are already documented with clear descriptions. The tool description adds file-format context but does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Import an externally authored .jmx file' with the outcome 'as a new test plan.' It is distinct from sibling add_* tools and create_test_plan because it emphasizes external authorship and file-based import.

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 gives a clear context for use: importing externally authored .jmx files, such as those exported from the JMeter GUI. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended trigger is evident from the description.

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