hebbrix_import

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It explains accepted input formats (list of strings, objects, export JSON, plain/markdown string) and the return shape, but omits critical mutation semantics: whether import merges or replaces existing memories, how collection_id resolves when null, and what 'failed' means. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a write operation.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, then use cases, then data formats, then return value. Every sentence adds value; there is no padding or repetition.

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 has moderate complexity (flexible data input, optional collection, indexing flag) and no annotations. The description covers purpose, usage, and return, but misses side-effect details and optional parameter behavior. It would be more complete with notes on merge-vs-replace and collection defaulting.

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 description provides detailed meaning for the `data` parameter, enumerating four accepted types and transformation rules. However, it says nothing about `collection_id` or `wait_for_index`, leaving two of three parameters underdocumented. Given schema description coverage is 0%, this incomplete compensation yields below-optimal parameter semantics.

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 'Import memories into a collection — the inverse of hebbrix_export', clearly stating the verb, resource, and scope. It further distinguishes this tool from siblings by framing it as the opposite of export and listing concrete use cases (restore, migrate, seed). This is specific and differentiates from related tools like hebbrix_remember_many.

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 'Use it to restore a backup, migrate a collection, or seed a new one from notes/CLAUDE.md', giving clear when-to-use guidance. The 'inverse of hebbrix_export' phrasing also names the alternative tool, satisfying the criterion for explicit alternatives.

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