import-project-template

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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits not captured by annotations: it writes immediately, cannot be undone, and adds to existing content rather than replacing it. It also clarifies source constraints (template ID/URL vs CSV content). Annotations only provide generic flags (readOnlyHint false, etc.), so the description carries the burden and does so thoroughly.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second explains sourcing, the third gives usage workflow and a safety warning. No filler or redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, sourcing, usage workflow for new projects, and irreversibility warning. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. For a mutating tool with additive behavior, this is complete and sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters (locale, projectId, templateId, csvFileContent). The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what schema says; it merely references the same source options. Thus, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific action: 'Import a template into an existing project, adding its tasks, sections and comments to whatever is already there.' It clearly names the resource (template) and target (existing project), and distinguishes from sibling tools like export-project-template and add-projects by explicit comparison.

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 explicitly explains when to use this tool ('into an existing project') and when to use an alternative: 'To start a new project from a template, create the project with add-projects first, then import into it.' It also warns against misuse: 'only run it against a project the user named.' This is strong contextual guidance.

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