add_import_declaration

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (add import declaration) and return type (JSON response), but does not disclose potential side effects, permissions required, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich; it leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence core purpose, usage precondition, conditional rules, parameter list, and return type. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, mutation, output schema present), the description covers purpose, preconditions, all parameters, and return type. It lacks details about error handling and file implications, but the output schema likely fills some gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for all 7 parameters in the 'Args' section, including examples for index and key. However, distinctions like resource vs resource_address are not fully clarified, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Add import declaration to facets.yaml.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by referencing a specific predecessor tool (discover_terraform_resources), which is listed as a sibling, making the tool's purpose and context unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use after discovering resources with discover_terraform_resources.' It also provides conditional guidance for parameters (index for count, key for for_each). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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