Import Document

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, confirming mutation. The description adds beyond this by detailing additional behaviors: normalizing for search and proposing gate candidates. This provides useful context without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key actions (import, normalize, propose gates) without any redundant words. Every clause adds value.

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 has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the import process and outcomes but omits potential return details (e.g., success/error responses) or side effects beyond the mention of normalization and gate proposals. Somewhat complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 fully documents each parameter. The description adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation for high coverage.

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 action ('Import'), the resource ('a local policy or runbook document'), and the specific outcomes ('normalize it for search, and propose provenance-backed gate candidates'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_imported_document or list_imported_documents.

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 clear context on what the tool does but does not explicitly guide when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_imported_document) or when not to use it. No exclusionary conditions or alternative tool references are given.

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