Verifies and restores an exported workspace into a new directory without overwriting existing workspaces, so you can use that directory as output_dir in a new connection.
Verify every file of an exported workspace and restore it into a new directory. Never overwrites an existing workspace. Use that directory as output_dir in a new connection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| source | Yes | ||
| destination | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds useful specifics beyond them: it verifies every file and 'Never overwrites an existing workspace.' This clarifies the non-destructive behavior and the new-directory outcome, though it doesn't explain failure modes or permissions.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key constraint and next step. No wasted words; each sentence adds distinct 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?
For a simple two-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, key behavioral constraint (no overwrite), and post-call workflow. It leaves minor gaps around what 'verify' entails and how destination conflicts are handled, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It implies source is the exported workspace and destination is the new directory, and later clarifies that directory serves as 'output_dir,' but it does not explicitly map parameter names or state expected formats (e.g., paths vs. identifiers), leaving some ambiguity.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Verify every file of an exported workspace and restore it into a new directory.' This clearly distinguishes the import operation from the sibling export_workspace, though it does not explicitly name the sibling or other related tools like import_artifact.
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?
Usage is implied through the workflow instruction 'Use that directory as output_dir in a new connection' and the non-overwrite guarantee, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. The agent can infer it is for restoring an exported workspace, but the guidance is not fully spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.