import_profile

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

Annotations only say it is not read-only, not destructive, not open-world; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing add-only merge semantics ('only what the profile lacks, never overwriting'), where level-less skills land (<profile>/imported-skills.md, not the inventory), that bullets are tagged 'imported', and that for a PDF nothing is written and the text is returned instead. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose and formats are front-loaded, then details follow in roughly descending importance (what is written, skill handling, tagging, return value, PDF exception). It is dense and semicolon-heavy, but nearly every clause carries operational information; only the format list is redundant with the schema.

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 having no output schema, it describes the return payload ('what was added' plus an optional note) and the PDF return ('the text'). For a multi-format, additive write tool, the write scope, non-overwrite guarantee, tagging side effect, and dry-run path cover everything an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real usage meaning for dry_run by prescribing 'run it first with dry_run' as the intended first call rather than leaving the flag's role to the schema alone. It also restates the path formats already in the schema, adding no new detail there.

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+resource ('Import an existing CV into the profile') and enumerates the exact accepted formats (.json JSON Resume, .zip LinkedIn export, LinkedIn PDF). It also situates itself relative to siblings ('right after init_profile', 'instead of typing everything'), so an agent can place it in the workflow without opening another schema.

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?

Explicit about when to use it ('at the start, right after init_profile'), the recommended sequence ('run it first with dry_run'), and routes the PDF sub-case to the import_linkedin_pdf prompt for organizing text with editing tools. Alternatives and timing are both named.

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