memory_import_legacy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that malformed entries are skipped and that this is a one-off operation. It does not explicitly state whether the import merges or overwrites existing store entries, but the core behavioral traits are conveyed.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The key operation and migration caveat are front-loaded, and every sentence contributes useful information.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what the tool does, when to run it, and the important malformed-entry caveat. It could add return/error behavior or explicit merge vs overwrite semantics, but the tool's low complexity keeps this gap modest.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single path parameter and describes it as the full path to the old memorymanagement.md file. The description adds contextual color about v4 Markdown and legacy status, but no substantive meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it imports a v4 Markdown memory file into the current store. It also clearly marks the operation as a one-off migration, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_get or memory_record.

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 description states explicit timing and lifecycle context: 'Run once after upgrading, then delete the old file.' It does not name alternative tools or when-not conditions, but the specialized migration framing makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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