import_document

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

Annotations mark destructiveHint=true, which is consistent with importing (creating/modifying). The description adds context about normalization and gate proposal but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing documents or required permissions. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that packs import, normalization, and gate proposal without wasted words. Highly concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main actions but omits details like what happens when both filePath and content are provided, error handling, or the exact meaning of 'propose gates'. Moderately complete given annotations and schema richness.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds little extra meaning beyond mentioning 'local policy or runbook document' which maps to filePath/content. Baseline 3 is correct as the description does not enhance understanding of parameter relationships or defaults.

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 tool imports a document, normalizes it, and proposes gates. It specifies the resource (local policy/runbook) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_imported_document, though could be more explicit about what 'import' entails compared to other operations.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or compare with siblings like list_imported_documents or search_thumbgate, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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