import_dcs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the side effect (writes to raw layer) and the downstream repack step, which is useful. However, it omits overwrite behavior, idempotence, validation behavior, error handling, or any access/permission implications.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the main action, then specifies the two source formats, then states the target layer and downstream step. Every sentence contributes information without repetition or filler.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, so the description needs to be far more complete. It fails to explain the required dir_path parameter, the roles of object_path and template_name, or any edge-case behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but the calling contract is still incomplete.

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, but it only partially does so. It clarifies that template_path is a file and xml_text is a string, but it completely ignores the required dir_path parameter and provides no meaning for object_path or template_name. The one required parameter is left undocumented.

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 action: loading an entire ACS layout (СКД макета) from XML in the standard platform format. It is unambiguous about the resource and source format, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like import_template or read_dcs.

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 useful pipeline context by noting that writing goes to the raw layer and assembly is performed by repack, implying this tool is the raw-import step. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as import_template or read_dcs, nor does it state when not to use it.

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