wb_native_import

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only discloses one trait: that run defaults to false, implying a non-executing dry run. It says nothing about what actually gets written when run=true, whether existing output is overwritten, what the template-bundle must contain, or what the backend failure modes are.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and immediately followed by the most actionable fact (run defaults to false). It is compact with no filler, though the dense backend jargon ('template-bundle + WKit JSON deserialize backend') trades brevity for opacity.

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?

This is a 7-parameter, 3-required-parameter import pipeline tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, so the description is the only documentation channel and it covers a fraction of what an agent needs. Critical unknowns remain: what the required inputs must contain, what the tool returns, and how it differs from the numerous adjacent build/import tools.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails to. Only 'run' receives any elucidation (its false default); export_file, bundle, output, cli, timeout, and keep_json get no explanation of format, path semantics, or effect anywhere in the definition.

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 names a resource (a 'WB export') and a mechanism ('template-bundle + WKit JSON deserialize backend'), so an agent can form a rough idea of the operation. However, the verb is hedged as 'Prepare/import', leaving it ambiguous whether this stages files or actually performs the import, and nothing distinguishes it from close siblings such as wb_build_native_import, wb_worker_import, or wb_native_convert.

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 only situational hint is 'run=false by default', which implies a dry-run first workflow but never states it as guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over the many overlapping import/build siblings, no prerequisites (does a bundle need to exist first?), and no when-not-to-use case.

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