import_project

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to specify side effects (e.g., overwriting existing config), required permissions, or return behavior. The term 'import' implies an action but lacks detail on what changes occur.

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?

At only two words, the description is under-specified. True conciseness would include essential details without verbosity; this lacks necessary information and does not earn its place as a standalone description.

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?

Given the tool has a nested object parameter ('config'), an output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output contains or how to use the 'config' object, leaving significant gaps for agent decision-making.

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?

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. Both parameters ('project' and 'config') are left completely unexplained. The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate by describing parameter roles or formats.

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 'Import project configuration' uses a verb and resource but is vague on what 'import' means exactly. It does not distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_project', which might have overlapping functionality. The lack of clarity about whether the project must already exist undermines the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., project existence) or context that would help an agent decide between 'import_project' and 'create_project'.

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