import_document

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

The annotation already indicates destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the operation may be destructive. The description adds that the document is normalized and gate candidates are proposed, but does not elaborate on the nature of the destructiveness (e.g., overwrites existing documents). The description does not contradict the annotation.

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, well-constructed sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and outcome.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations only indicate destructiveness, the description covers the main action but omits details about what the tool returns (e.g., imported document ID) and how optional parameters affect behavior. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds overall context about importing and normalizing but does not provide additional meaning for individual parameters beyond what is in the schema.

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 (local policy or runbook document), and the outcome: normalization for search and proposal of provenance-backed gate candidates. It effectively differentiates from sibling tools like 'list_imported_documents' by focusing on the import action.

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 when to use this tool (when importing a document) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among the many sibling tools. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or context.

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