import_threat_model_archive

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: fresh model_id on each import, no collision on re-import, automatic suffix for title collisions, and write access requirement. This is thorough and honest.

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 concise with 4 sentences, each adding value: function, id behavior, collision handling, access requirement. No redundant or wasteful information. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 (3 parameters, nested object, no annotations), the description covers purpose, side effects, and access. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description is sufficiently complete.

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 description adds context for envelope (archive from export) and workspace_id, but does not explain server_version. Schema coverage is 67% (envelope and workspace_id documented in schema; server_version missing). The description partially compensates but leaves server_version undocumented, so a 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 tool imports a JSON audit archive from export_threat_model_archive into a target workspace. It uses specific verbs and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_threat_model_archive and other import tools.

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 the tool (importing archives) and provides context about model_id assignment, title collisions, and write access requirement. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the use case is clear given the sibling tool names.

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