ecp_mysql_import_database

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

With no annotations provided, the description correctly emphasizes the destructive and irreversible nature of the operation ('Irreversible - overwriting its content'). It also indicates that the SQL is passed as text, which is a key behavioral detail. It does not mention potential data loss for other databases or rollback options, but the core warning is present.

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 brief and front-loads the essential action and destructive warning in the first sentence. The second sentence reinforces the input method. It is concise without waste, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the operational note from the safety warning.

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?

Given that the tool is a destructive import with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: what it does, that it overwrites, and that it is irreversible. It lacks details on success/failure feedback (since no output schema) and does not explicitly confirm the confirm parameter's role, but for a simple import operation, the description is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. The description clearly explains that sql_content is the full SQL dump text and implies that db_name identifies the target database. It also hints at the confirm parameter's purpose by warning about irreversibility, though it doesn't explicitly state that confirm must be true. Given the 0% coverage, the description adds significant value.

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 clearly states the verb (Import), the resource (.sql dump into an existing MySQL database), and the effect (overwriting content). It is concise and distinct from sibling tools like ecp_mysql_export_database, which is the reverse operation, and ecp_mysql_restore_from_storage_bd, which restores from storage rather than raw SQL text.

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 usage by mentioning 'existing MySQL database' and passing SQL as text, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like restore-from-storage or provide exclusions. It does not mention prerequisites such as the database must exist or that the user must have permission. Adequate but not fully explicit.

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