import_ribbon_solution

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

Beyond the destructive/non-idempotent annotations, the description discloses that this is a whole-solution import affecting unchanged components, requires exact candidate bytes and a fresh baseline, and that unknown acceptance retains the importJobId and is never replayed. It also explains the provenance receipt and the boundary between import and separate publication.

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 preview-first process is front-loaded and every sentence carries operational constraints with no filler. However, it is a dense run-on paragraph with heavy jargon and all-caps emphasis, which makes it harder to parse than necessary.

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 complex destructive async import with no output schema, the description covers scope, preflight, required acknowledgments, unknown-acceptance handling, and receipt/provenance behavior. It could still be more complete by explicitly pointing to import-status polling or verification siblings and by reconciling planHash with expected_hash.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for allow_unprotected_write, allow_full_solution_import, structured edits, and candidate bytes, but it says to execute with a 'current planHash' while the schema exposes expected_hash, and it leaves source/candidate/logical_name semantics largely to the schema.

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?

It states a specific action: submit one native async whole-solution import into an existing ordinary unmanaged solution for reviewed classic Ribbon edits. It also separates import from later publication, distinguishing it from publish_ribbon_solution. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as import_solution_async or edit_ribbon_solution, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The description gives clear process guidance: preview first, then execute with the current plan hash and the two explicit acknowledgment flags. It also lists exclusions (no upgrade/managed/override/automatic publish) and says receipt loss or restart is not permission to reimport. It lacks direct comparison with sibling alternatives such as import_solution_async or publish_ribbon_solution.

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