interchange_import_asset

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds genuinely useful context: synchronous execution, no dialogs, and specifically that existing assets are replaced unless replace_existing is false — telling the agent exactly what gets destroyed. It stops short of stating required permissions or plugin preconditions beyond the note field.

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?

Front-loads the operational constraints (synchronous, unattended, replace behavior) before the plugin caveat, then a compact returns block. Every sentence carries information, and the returns block compensates for the absent output schema.

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 import tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behaviors: synchronous/unattended execution, replacement semantics, plugin-absent handling, and an inline return shape including the note field. An agent has enough to call it correctly without further info.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description marginally reinforces replace_existing semantics but adds nothing about file_path format or destination_path defaults beyond what the schema supplies. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (import a source file) plus the mechanism (through the Interchange manager), so an agent can tell it is an Interchange-based import. It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as import_asset, reimport_asset, or interchange_reimport_asset, which would need the description to disambiguate.

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 'unattended, no dialogs' framing implies an automated/batch context and the destination/replace behavior is characterized, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance and no stated prerequisites (e.g., plugin must be loaded). 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.