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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that this is a mutating operation. It adds valuable context about the endpoint and the bundle-as-body requirement. It does not describe side effects (e.g., what happens on duplicate IDs), but the annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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, no fluff, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It efficiently conveys the endpoint, the body requirement, and the optional scoping parameter.

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 an import tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential input format and source. It doesn't mention error handling or return values, but given the annotations and the simplicity of the operation, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds the critical detail that the bundle is the entire request body ('application/json body IS the bundle') and that ownerAppId defaults server-side. This goes beyond the schema's 'owning App' wording.

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 action (import), the resource (Agent), and the source (bundle produced by ethora-agents-export-v2). It also specifies the exact endpoint and that the body is the bundle, making it unambiguous and distinct from create/clone siblings.

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 explicitly indicates that the input must come from ethora-agents-export-v2, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly contrast with create-v2 or clone-v2, but the prerequisite is clear enough to route the agent correctly in most cases.

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