ontology_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that the operation validates and audits before registering, which is useful, but it does not explain persistence effects, failure behavior, permission requirements, or what happens if validation fails. Significant behavioral context is missing.

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 description is a single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and pipeline. It wastes no words, though it is somewhat terse and could include one or two more meaningful details without becoming verbose.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the agent uncertain about return values, error cases, audit outputs, and edge behaviors like duplicate submission. The three parameters are documented in the schema, but the overall operation is under-explained for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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. The description only paraphrases the payload structure already in the schema and adds no new parameter semantics such as validation rules, JSON format details, or how comment and agent_id affect the audit trail.

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 identifies a clear verb ('注入' / submit and register), a specific resource (ontology entities, concepts, relations), and the processing pipeline (validation + audit then registration). It is distinguishable from siblings like validate_ontology and create_entity by scope and action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not state when an agent should choose this tool over validate_ontology, create_entity, create_concept, or update_entity, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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