reanim_import_profileImport a profile JSON, backing up current SaveData first, then deep-merge Custom settings and replace other keys to restore a saved configuration.
Import a profile JSON (auto-backs up current SaveData first). Merges Custom deeply, replaces other keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Profile name or filename in Profiles/ |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it discloses that current SaveData is backed up first and that Custom is deep-merged while other keys are replaced. That clarifies exactly what gets overwritten versus preserved. It stops short of covering failure modes or whether the backup is user-visible.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, and the most consequential fact (auto-backup) is placed up front followed by the merge semantics. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important behaviors: backup, merge strategy, and destructive replacement, while annotations cover the safety profile. Minor gaps remain around error handling and where the backup lands, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.
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% with one param, so the schema already explains that 'name' is a profile name or filename in Profiles/. The description adds no further parameter semantics beyond the phrase 'profile JSON', so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (import a profile JSON) and adds concrete scope: it auto-backs up SaveData and has differentiated merge behavior (deep merge for Custom, replace for other keys). An agent can distinguish this from reanim_export_profile. It stops just short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements.
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 guidance on when to import a profile versus alternatives like reanim_restore_savedata or reanim_apply_theme_preset, and no stated prerequisites for the profile source. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.