import_markdown

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new note, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, whether it overwrites existing notes, error handling for invalid files, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by structured sections for args and returns. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections could be more integrated into the flow rather than bullet-like, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'args: Import parameters' is somewhat tautological).

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 the tool's complexity (a write operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on the return value (only mentions 'Dictionary containing the created note data' without structure), error cases, and how it interacts with sibling tools. For a mutation tool, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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. It adds value by explaining that 'file_path' is the 'Path to the markdown file', which clarifies the parameter's purpose beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths, file extensions), so it only partially addresses the coverage gap.

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 clearly states the action ('Import a markdown file') and the outcome ('as a new note'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_note' or 'update_note', which might also create or modify notes, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_note' or 'update_note'. It mentions the action but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions, or contextual usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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