import_tokens

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tokens are imported but does not explain side effects, whether existing tokens are overwritten, whether a collection is created, or what happens after import. An import operation likely mutates state, but this is left implicit.

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 a single clear sentence with no filler. The format specification is usefully incorporated in parentheses without bloating the text.

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 tool is a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, but the description omits important behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, collection creation, and interaction with existing token structures. Two parameters are present, one being an optional collectionName, yet the description does not explain when that parameter matters.

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 both parameters. The description adds context about the W3C format for the 'json' parameter, but this is marginal; it does not need to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('Import') and resource ('design tokens') with a concrete input format ('JSON (W3C Design Token format)'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like export_tokens and create_design_tokens.

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 implies when to use the tool: when a user provides design tokens in W3C JSON format. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare against alternatives such as create_design_tokens or import_design_system.

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