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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real value on top by scoping that destructiveness ("Nothing it already brought in is deleted") and explaining why re-scanning is safe ("nothing arrives twice"). It also discloses a concrete failure mode and error code (import_running) that the annotations cannot express.

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-loaded with the outcome in the first clause, followed by the non-obvious guarantees and the failure case. The Args line is redundant given a 100%-covered schema, but the Returns line earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the effect, the non-deletion guarantee, re-scan behavior, the blocking error, and the return shape. The only omission is an explicit pointer to a state-checking sibling to confirm the import is no longer running.

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% and the schema already tells the agent import_id comes from helpcenter_scan_import or helpcenter_list_imports. The description's "Args:" block merely restates the parameter name and requiredness, adding no new meaning.

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 and resource ("Cancel an import") and immediately defines the effect: it never runs again and stops syncing. The agent can distinguish it from helpcenter_run_import, helpcenter_get_import, and helpcenter_list_imports without consulting schemas.

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?

Gives a clear when-not rule ("A queued or running import cannot be cancelled (import_running): wait for the run to end") plus the follow-up path (re-scanning the address recovers what it brought). It stops short of naming an alternative tool to check state first, such as helpcenter_get_import, but the operating context is unambiguous.

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