import_ontology

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core transformation, such as parents collapsing onto basic types and labels becoming aliases, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether the import overwrites existing entity types, whether the dataset parameter targets a specific dataset, or what happens on duplicate definitions.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action is front-loaded, and the transformation rules are stated compactly. Every clause adds meaningful information.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It omits parameter semantics, return behavior, and state-change details. An agent would likely need additional probing or examples to call this correctly, especially regarding 'name' and 'dataset'.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only references 'text' implicitly by saying the ontology is passed as text. It never explains 'name' (likely the imported ontology's name), 'format' (possibly the ontology serialization), or 'dataset' (where to import into), leaving the agent to guess.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import an OWL/RDF/Turtle ontology (text).' It goes on to explain the transformation it performs (classes become entity types, parents collapse, labels become aliases), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like describe_ontology or add_entity_type.

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 context of when to use this tool is implied: when you have an OWL/RDF/Turtle ontology in text form to bring in. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or what alternative to choose, such as add_entity_type for manually defining a single type or list_datasets for checking existing datasets.

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