document_import

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that; preparing a draft can be interpreted as read-only. The description adds the workflow context of draft preparation before preview/apply, which is useful, but it does not clarify side effects, output behavior, or constraints beyond that.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though it sacrifices enough detail that other dimensions suffer.

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 tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is too thin. It gives the general workflow but omits parameter semantics, valid input kinds, required path meaning, and any guidance around sibling alternatives.

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%, and the description does not mention `path`, `kind`, or `scope` directly. An agent cannot infer what the required `path` refers to, what valid `kind` values are, or what the `scope` default means. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 states a specific action: prepare approved-path Skill/说明/JSON content into a declaration draft, and it signals that this is a staging step before preview/apply. This distinguishes it from document_apply, though it never explicitly names sibling tools or alternative routes.

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?

It provides useful sequential context ('之后使用预览与应用入口'), implying this tool should be used before preview/apply. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, what kind of content qualifies, or how it differs from alternatives like document_read, document_preview, or document_apply.

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