documents_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 only states that a document is imported from a file, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether a new document is created, if it can be published), permissions needed, or error behavior. The minimal wording provides little beyond the basic action.

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 a single, concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and to the point, making it highly efficient. No fluff or repetition.

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 the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is seriously under-specified. It fails to explain return values, use cases, or behavioral nuances. For a tool of this complexity, more context is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, but since the schema fully covers them, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and the resource ('a document') and specifies the input source ('from a file'). This distinguishes it from siblings like documents_export (which goes to a file) and documents_create (which doesn't specify a file source). However, it doesn't provide details about the import process or output, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies a use case (importing a document from a file) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like documents_create or documents_update. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites, so it falls at 'implied usage' rather than clear context.

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