import_references

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the import action and input formats; it does not describe whether existing sources are preserved, overwritten, or merged, nor what side effects or response the agent should expect.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler or redundant wording. It is concise, but the saved space could have been used to clarify the ambiguous `path` and `out` parameters.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no parameter descriptions, this one-sentence description is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The required `path` parameter is especially ambiguous, and the description does not explain how the import interacts with existing references. The presence of an output schema helps return-value expectations, but the input contract remains underspecified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to explain the parameters. It clarifies `fmt` ('bibtex'/'csl-json') and the nature of `data` (the source string), but it leaves the required `path` and optional `out` parameters completely unexplained, which is a major gap for correct invocation.

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 clearly names the action ('Bulk-import sources') and specifies the resource and accepted formats (BibTeX or CSL-JSON), so an agent can tell this is a batch-import tool. It does not explicitly contrast it with the sibling `add_source`, though 'bulk' implies the distinction.

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 phrase 'Bulk-import' implies using this tool when there is a batch of references in BibTeX or CSL-JSON format, as opposed to adding a single source. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over `add_source` or whether it appends to or replaces existing references.

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