import_controls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: accepts JSON or free-text, auto-maps to COs, deduplicates, runs as background job (polled for progress), and requires confirmation before saving because it mutates the model. This is comprehensive, though it could mention error handling or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and then detail the key behavioral flow. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information.

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 (6 parameters, async background job, confirmation step), the description covers the essential aspects: input types, processing flow, and safety confirmation. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. It lacks details on polling mechanism or error handling but is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is high (83%), so the description adds marginal value beyond the schema. It explains that controls_json and free_text are input formats and mentions auto_map mapping behavior, but does not clarify source_label or server_version beyond their schema descriptions. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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), the resource (existing security controls into a threat model), and the method (structured JSON or free-text). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_controls or delete_control by specifying the import functionality with auto-mapping and deduplication.

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 explains the async nature and confirmation step but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., regenerate_controls, add_control). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided, making it only moderately helpful for decision-making.

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