xml_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Import' implies a document mutation, but the description does not say whether existing content is replaced or merged, whether it requires an open document, or whether it is reversible/undoable, leaving the risk profile opaque for a write operation.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, and the action is front-loaded. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than tight, complete communication.

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 document-mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, and half its parameters undocumented, the description leaves major gaps: what import does to existing content, required document state, and the meaning of filePath. It is well short of what an agent would need to call this safely and 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 coverage is only 50%: document_id is documented in the schema, but filePath has no description at all and the description adds nothing (format, path style, relative vs absolute, accepted extensions). With the schema failing to cover half the parameters, the description does not compensate.

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 and resource ('Import XML file into the document'), which is meaningful given the many XML-related siblings. However, it does not differentiate itself from xml_export, xml_addTag, xml_listTags, or xml_tagPageItem, so the agent must still infer the boundary from the name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to an alternative. The agent is told nothing about when importing XML is the right choice versus xml_export or the tag tools, so usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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