get_parameters_for_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and delivers: APC-enforced key-strength validation rules, the failure mode ('Attempting RSA_2048/RSA_3072/RSA_4096 with an AES-256 key will fail'), and the side-effect semantics of the default token behavior ('Default false, which mints a new token on every call'). Only a precise response-format disclaimer is missing, but the return value is described at a useful level.

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 most critical instruction is front-loaded ('Call this before import_key'), followed by a scannable rules list and then argument details. It is long, but every section earns its place — the key-strength rules prevent a common invocation error given the schema's lack of enums. Slight redundancy between the AES-256 callout and the general rules list, but not wasteful.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers prerequisites, valid inputs, constraints, failure conditions, and the alternative path. The only meaningful gap is that the exact response shape is not specified (no output schema exists), so an agent must infer the field names of the returned wrapping key and import token for the subsequent import_key call.

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 0% and no enums exist in the schema, yet the description fully compensates: it enumerates all accepted values for key_material_type (5 values) and wrapping_key_algorithm (4 values), ties algorithm choice to key-strength requirements, and explains the boolean's behavior with a concrete usage recommendation. Without this text, the tool would be uncallable correctly.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('you need APC's public wrapping key and import token before constructing the import payload') and a precise calling relationship with a named sibling ('Call this before import_key'). It clearly distinguishes this from both import_key (which it feeds) and get_parameters_for_export (the export counterpart) without ambiguity.

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 when to use it ('Call this before import_key when using TR-34 or KeyCryptogram') and gives an explicit alternative with a decision condition ('Alternative: use create_key... no import needed, but the key value is not externally known'). An agent knows exactly when this tool is required and when to route elsewhere.

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