Import file

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the file is copied into the project folder, large videos above a user threshold are linked instead of copied, and the node kind is inferred from the file type. It omits collision/overwrite behavior and permission requirements, but the copy-vs-link distinction is genuinely valuable.

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, front-loaded with the primary effect and the node-kind outcome, with the path constraint at the end where it belongs. Slightly dense in the middle clause, but 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 mutating import tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description explains the mutation's file-handling behavior well but leaves the spatial placement API undocumented. It is adequate for calling with just the required path, but incomplete for anyone using the optional placement 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 0% for five parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely fails: only 'path' is explained ('Use an absolute path'). Placement parameters x, y, name, and the nested near object (node/side/gap) get no explanation at all, leaving the agent to guess at positioning semantics.

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 ('Add a file from disk to the project') and enumerates the resulting node kinds, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling node-creation tools like create_nodes. The 'exactly like dropping it on the board' framing pins down the resource and effect immediately.

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?

Implies when to use it (when you have a file on disk rather than raw content to place on the board) and gives one concrete constraint, 'Use an absolute path.' However, it never names an alternative such as create_nodes for non-file sources, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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