research_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a write operation ('Import') and specifies a prerequisite condition, but doesn't describe what happens during import (e.g., whether it overwrites existing content, how sources are formatted in the notebook, or what permissions are required). The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 perfectly structured and concise. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides crucial usage guidance, and the Args section efficiently documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description provides good contextual coverage. It explains the purpose, usage prerequisites, and parameter meanings. The main gap is insufficient behavioral transparency about what the import operation actually does, but the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that notebook_id is a 'Notebook UUID', task_id is a 'Research task ID', and source_indices are 'Source indices to import' with a default of 'all'. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema types, though it doesn't explain what format source indices should be in or provide examples.

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 action ('Import discovered sources') and target ('into notebook'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like research_start or research_status by focusing on the import phase. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other notebook-related tools like notebook_add_text or notebook_add_url, which could also add content to notebooks.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Call after research_status shows status="completed".' This creates a clear prerequisite condition and establishes a workflow relationship with the research_status sibling tool, which is exactly what usage guidelines should accomplish.

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