import_memories

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

Annotations already flag mutability and idempotency, and the description adds concrete deduplication behavior: memories by msg_id/content and episodes by summary within a project/channel. This is genuinely useful for understanding re-import behavior, though it does not mention output format or any profile-specific dedupe rules.

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 two compact sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and the idempotency behavior placed second. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or redundancy exists.

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 moderately sized import tool, the description plus schema cover the core use case, input path, preview mode, agent remapping, and idempotent behavior. Since there is no output schema, some return-value details are absent, but the tool is still well-enough described for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the description does not need to restate them. The description provides helpful idempotency context but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Import'), names the resources ('memories, episodes, and profiles'), and identifies the input format ('JSONL'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_memories or list_memories, and the dedupe statement adds further scoping.

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 imported use case is clear: load memories/episodes/profiles from a JSONL file, possibly repeated safely due to idempotency. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as merge_memories or state when not to use the tool, but the stated scope and input format make the usage context reasonably obvious.

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