Import content into a change request

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

The description complements annotations by disclosing the asynchronous nature (returns run id + status), the default AI enhancement, and the recommendation to use a change request. No annotation contradictions exist; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 (5 sentences), front-loaded with the primary purpose, and structured logically. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value (run id + status), the async behavior, and the post-import workflow. For a write tool with moderate complexity, it covers all essential information an AI agent needs to invoke it 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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the sourceUrl must be a public URL (already in schema but reinforced), the AI-enhance default (also in schema), and the change request recommendation (not in schema). This provides operational insight.

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 identifies the tool as GitBook's primary content-write primitive for importing a public web page into a space within a change request. It distinguishes itself by noting the absence of a direct 'set page body' API, making its purpose 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?

The description provides explicit usage context: it is the supported write path, recommends scoping via changeRequestId to avoid live branch modification, and outlines the workflow (import, review, then gitbook_merge_change_request to publish). This distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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