import_threat_model_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that the operation is mutating, requires write access, assigns a fresh model_id, auto-suffixes title collisions, and never overwrites existing models. This fully covers safety and side-effect 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 purpose, then concisely covers mutation behavior, collision handling, and usage. Every sentence carries essential information without 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?

The description provides a complete behavioral and usage picture for an import operation, covering prerequisites, side effects, and non-destructiveness. Since an output schema exists, return values are already defined, so no further description is needed.

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 schema describes envelope and workspace_id, but the description adds no further parameter details and does not address the undocumented server_version. The description does not compensate for the missing server_version semantics, leaving a 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 tool imports a JSON audit archive from export_threat_model_archive into a target workspace, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it creates a new model and is used for moving/cloning between workspaces.

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?

It explicitly states when to use ('Use to move or clone a model between workspaces or across instances') and mentions a prerequisite (the envelope round-trips through export first). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use alternatives, but no direct alternative exists among siblings.

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