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

Annotations cover only the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, non-destructive, non-idempotent). The description goes well beyond them, disclosing data loss (positions and colors are not kept, the flow is re-laid out), multi-flow splitting behavior ('one flow per workflow, up to 25'), node limit ('up to 250 nodes'), and the return payload. This is exceptionally rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then the accepted formats, then the transformation rules, then the return value. It's dense but every sentence earns its place – the format enumeration and the 'up to X' limits are all decision-relevant. It could be slightly terser on the format list.

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?

Given no output schema, the description correctly closes the loop by stating what is returned (flow id(s), detected format, node/edge counts, open links). Combined with the transformation semantics and limits, an agent has everything needed to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the default title behavior ('first node label') and the auto-detection of format, but doesn't expand on team_id, folder_id, or direction beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Turn an existing diagram or automation into editable Wavelength flows') and enumerates exactly which source types are supported. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like import_from_n8n, import_dbt_lineage, and create_flow_from_text by being the general-purpose multi-format importer.

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?

Provides clear context: 'with no AI call' and 'Pass the source as text', which tells the agent this is a deterministic parser rather than an AI-powered creation path. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over import_from_n8n or import_dbt_lineage, but the breadth of accepted formats implies its role.

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