import_project_archive

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions automatic verification, dry_run and require_runnable support, and reporting of SECRET_VALUES_REQUIRED. However, it does not explain the import process's mutability (it creates a new project), required permissions, or the format of the response, leaving gaps in transparency.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and then adding behavioral details. Every phrase earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 complexity of 7 parameters (with nested objects) and no output schema, the description only covers automatic verification, dry_run, require_runnable, and a status report. It does not explain the return structure, error handling, or the exact import process (e.g., creating a new project is implied but not stated). This leaves the agent with significant unknowns.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds no extra details about individual parameters beyond naming dry_run and require_runnable. At high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not provide additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 explicitly states 'Import a verified portable archive into a new local Run402 Core project through the Core gateway', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It also mentions key features like automatic verification and dry-run support, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like export_project_archive or verify_project_archive.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as inspect_project_archive or verify_project_archive. There is no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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