import_tool_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical trait: live SQLite writes are refused unless confirm=true. It also adds an operational warning (not recommended while Studio is open). It stops short of stating whether validation is the default no-write path or what happens on validation failure.

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, front-loaded with the validation purpose and immediately followed by the write-gating constraint. Slightly redundant with the tool name but no wasted prose.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and the description covers the key risk (destructive write gating). The one notable gap is the undocumented shape of tool_data, which matters given it is a required nested object.

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 and it only partially does. It explains confirm's gating semantics, which the schema does not, but tool_data — a nested object with additionalProperties — is left entirely undefined as to expected shape.

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+resource: validating a tool config payload for Toolbox import. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling export_tool_config by naming the direction (import). However it does not explicitly call out that sibling, and the name 'import' versus the description's 'validate' framing takes a moment to reconcile.

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 by 'for Toolbox import', and the confirm=true condition is stated. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings like export_tool_config or list_configured_tools, and no statement of prerequisites or when a user should prefer a pure validation run.

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