rws_evaluation_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that registration pins protocol/code/input versions and performs validation without computing metrics, which is useful beyond annotations, but says nothing about failure modes, concurrency, or what validation rejects.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the resource, the version-pinning constraint, and the exclusion, with zero filler.

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?

The input schema is deeply nested with 4 required top-level parameters and no output schema, yet the description covers only a fraction of what an agent needs. Critical semantics like expectedRevision conflict behavior and requestId idempotency are entirely absent for what is a mutating registration call.

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 carries the burden and largely does not. It hints at the protocolRef/codeRef/inputRefs fields via 'fixed protocol/code/input versions', but never explains expectedRevision (optimistic concurrency), requestId (idempotency key), or the structure of record/results.

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 uses specific verbs ('validate and register') and a specific resource ('existing typed evaluation results'), and explicitly scopes to fixed protocol/code/input versions. It also rules out metric computation, which cleanly separates it from compute-oriented siblings. It stops short of naming an actual alternative tool.

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 clause 'does not compute metrics' implicitly signals this is for results already produced elsewhere, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like rws_result_query or rws_comparison_save. Usage must be inferred.

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