ybiz_import_export

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the key destructive trait — force=True overwrites existing YAML and destroys local unsaved edits — which is valuable. However, it does not disclose whether a non-force import is also a mutation, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens to a pre-existing baseline on a normal import.

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?

Two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The destructive force=True warning is placed at the end, which is acceptable but arguably deserves more prominence given the data-loss risk; still, every sentence earns its place.

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 file-mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more. It covers the core operation and force behavior but leaves the workspace parameter undocumented, fails to explain what happens to an existing baseline on a normal (non-force) import, and omits prerequisites. An output schema exists, which relieves return-value explanation, but the behavioral and parameter gaps remain significant.

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 for all three parameters. It explains force=True's meaning (overwrite existing YAML, lose unsaved edits) and implies xml_path is the path to the XML file, but the workspace parameter is never mentioned or explained at all, leaving it completely ambiguous.

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 verb (import), a concrete source resource (XML export from Yandex Business cabinet), a destination (YAML branches), and a distinct side effect (saving as baseline). Among the siblings (ybiz_status, ybiz_list_branches, ybiz_get_branch, ybiz_update_branch, ybiz_add_branch, ybiz_validate, ybiz_diff, ybiz_build), none perform import, so the tool is cleanly differentiated without needing to name an alternative.

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 implies usage — call this when you have an XML export to bring into YAML branches — and the siblings are all distinct operations, so the context is reasonably clear. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the XML must be validated first with ybiz_validate), and no stated exclusions.

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