import_agent

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so safety basics are covered. The description adds useful provenance/risk context about the complex template shape, but says nothing about what the import creates, whether an agent ID is returned, or duplicate-import 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the method and source route, followed by a single risk warning. Nothing redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should say something about the result of an import (new agent ID, side effects, what lineage fromAgentId buys you). The critical caller risk (template shape) is covered, but outcome information is absent for a mutating, open-world tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters (agentName, fromAgentId, agentTemplate) are already documented, including the warning not to invent nested fields. The description reinforces provenance for agentTemplate but largely repeats what the schema says, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (agent) plus the required source artifact (a template produced by export_agent / the OpenAPI export-template route), which ties it to a concrete sibling. It does not differentiate from other creation paths like create_agent_from_template or clone_agent, so the boundary is only partially drawn.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition (template must come from export_agent / the export-template route) and an explicit anti-pattern (do not invent the template shape manually unless the user supplies an exact exported object). It stops short of naming when to prefer the sibling alternatives.

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