import_controls

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: accepts both JSON and free-text, auto-maps to control objectives, deduplicates, runs as a background job requiring polling, and requires confirmation before saving due to model mutation.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise details on input, processing, and required confirmation. Each sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 complexity (6 parameters, background job, confirmation), the description covers the main workflow and important behavioral aspects. It omits details on polling progress or error handling, but an output schema likely handles return values.

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 already covers 83% of parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining how parameters like 'controls_json' and 'free_text' are used in the overall import flow, and mentions auto-mapping and dedup, which are not in the schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Import existing security controls into a threat model.' It specifies the action (import), resource (security controls), and target (threat model), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'auto_map_controls' and 'regenerate_controls'.

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 when to use this tool: to import controls from structured JSON or free-text. It provides context on the background job and confirmation step, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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