import_session_resource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Import' implies a write, and 'verify' implies a post-import validation step, but neither is explained: it does not say what gets written into the session, whether an existing resource is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or what 'verify' actually checks.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, for a five-parameter tool with a confirmation gate, one sentence provides no structure to organize the invocation details an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but everything else is missing: five undocumented parameters, no annotation coverage, no sibling differentiation, and no explanation of the verify step or the confirm gate. For an import/mutation tool this leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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 description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description adds no information about any of them. The required file_path and usage, the optional name/group, and especially the confirm boolean are all left entirely unexplained.

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 names a specific verb (import) plus a verification step and a scoped resource (sandboxed resource for the current Painter session). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from the close siblings import_project_resource and import_shelf_resource, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool rather than import_project_resource or import_shelf_resource, and no mention of prerequisites such as the session being open. The presence of a 'confirm' flag suggests a gated or potentially destructive step, but the description never says when confirmation is required or what happens without it.

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