Import a Path of Building 2 build

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description's statement 'save it as the active build' confirms mutation without contradiction. It adds useful context about parsing into equipment/skills/passive tree and computed stats, though it does not mention overwriting behavior or side effects beyond saving.

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 no filler. The core purpose and effect are front-loaded, followed by parameter clarification. 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?

The tool is a mutation with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers what it does, valid inputs, and the effect on active build. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., active character) but is otherwise complete for an import tool.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the mutual exclusivity ('either... or') and clarifies 'approved URL' and 'configured PoB Builds directory', providing extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the verb (parse/import/save), the resource (a Path of Building 2 build), and the outcome (saves as active build for gear/defense tools). It distinguishes from sibling import_poe_ninja_character by specifying PoB2 builds.

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 explains how to provide input (either code or filePath) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like import_poe_ninja_character or state conditions for use. It implies usage context but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance.

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