bowire.import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it declares the return shape ({ format, collections, environments, report }), discloses that report flags approximations, skips and clear-text credentials, and notes the side effect of writing a .bww file when outPath is supplied. It does not mention required permissions, whether existing collections are overwritten, or whether the import is idempotent, leaving mutation semantics partly unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and the accepted formats, then returns, then the optional side effect — a sensible information order. The format enumeration is long but every clause is load-bearing; only the trailing issue reference (#674) is noise.

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 four-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers the input families, the result object, the report's purpose and the optional workspace write, which is everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly. Remaining gaps (conflict/overwrite behavior) are secondary.

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 schema already documents path, name, format and outPath. The description adds only marginal value beyond it, mainly that outPath's .bww file is consumed by the workbench or the CLI workspace import, and it does not explain format-sniffing fallback behavior or path semantics for directories vs files.

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 (Import) plus the exact resource families accepted: Insomnia v4 JSON/YAML and v5 YAML, Bruno .bru directories or OpenCollection YAML, and .http files/directories. The enumeration makes it distinguishable from sibling bowire.har.import without opening either 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?

Clear context for when to call it: you have an Insomnia, Bruno, OpenCollection or .http artifact on disk and want it turned into Bowire collections/environments. It references `bowire workspace import` as the consumer of the generated .bww, but never explicitly names a sibling tool as the alternative (e.g. use bowire.har.import for HAR captures) or states exclusion conditions.

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