import_threat_model_archive

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states the operation is mutating, requires write access, assigns a fresh model_id on every import, avoids collisions, auto-suffixes title collisions, and is non-destructive by never overwriting existing models.

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 compact yet information-dense: a one-line purpose, a behavioral block covering mutation/safety/idempotency, and a usage sentence. Every sentence contributes meaningful, non-redundant guidance.

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?

For a mutating import tool with a nested envelope parameter and no annotations, the description covers the full lifecycle: source envelope, target workspace, permission requirement, idempotency, collision behavior, and non-destructive semantics. The output schema handles return value details, so no further return explanation 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, with envelope and workspace_id described in the schema. The description reinforces these by tying envelope to export_report output and workspace_id to target workspace, but server_version remains unexplained in both schema and description. Value added is moderate but incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Import a JSON audit archive... into a target workspace" and immediately clarifies it creates a NEW threat model. It clearly distinguishes from sibling import tools (import_controls, import_compliance_framework, import_functional_tests) by tying to export_report's model 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 gives clear usage context: "Use to move or clone a model between workspaces or across instances" and specifies the prerequisite round-trip through export_report. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the workflow and mutation implications are evident.

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