fow_import_srs

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the load and does reasonably well: it discloses provenance validation, atomic import semantics, the eligibility prerequisite, and the non-implication of stakeholder acceptance, and points to the operation help for receipt policy. It still doesn't cover permissions/auth required to import a canonical baseline or whether an import can be undone.

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-loaded statement of purpose followed by clearly labelled Prerequisites/Effects lines — efficient structure. The final 'exact help' sentence is boilerplate phrased generically for a route-based tool and reads as marginal noise on a single-operation tool.

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?

Covers purpose, prerequisites, effects, sibling routing, and invocation mode, but with no output schema the description never says what the agent receives back (baseline identifier, receipt, revision record). For a baseline-mutating operation that gap is a modest but real incompleteness.

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?

All five parameters carry schema descriptions (source_path explains the server-filesystem constraint and import root; request_id explains retry identity), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds that the source must be eligible under the selected profile, which is confirmatory rather than new. 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 ... Markdown SRS as the initial canonical requirement baseline') and scopes it to the *initial* baseline, explicitly naming fow_revise_srs_baseline as the tool for existing baseline changes. An agent can distinguish this from its lifecycle siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition selecting it ('Existing baseline changes use fow_revise_srs_baseline'), plus stated prerequisites (eligible local SRS under the selected profile) and a scope exclusion ('import is not stakeholder acceptance'). It also tells the agent to call directly without an operation argument.

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