security-import-account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by spelling out what is destroyed ('overwriting the account's current state with the serialized one') and the filesystem dependency. It does not describe reversibility or return behavior, but the key destructive consequence is explicit.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its destructive consequence, followed by prerequisite and platform caveat. No wasted text.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the prerequisite, the destructive semantics, and a platform-specific alternative, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is essentially complete, with only minor omissions (reversibility, error conditions) left unaddressed.

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%, and the schema already documents the path/root mutual exclusion and the identity/accountType semantics. The description adds only the incidental '.user / .role file' framing, so baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Imports (deserializes) a Sitecore user or role') plus scope ('from the CM's filesystem'), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like security-export-account, security-new-user, and security-set-user. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 an explicit prerequisite and routing: the .user/.role file must already exist and should be created with security-export-account first, plus a platform-specific alternative (Sitecore CLI on SitecoreAI). It stops short of stating when not to use this tool versus other account-mutation tools, so it is clear context without full exclusion guidance.

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