import_from_sidecar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses additive behavior, idempotency (skips existing), a safe dry-run default, chunked writes when executing, and quota cost. It does not cover response/error behavior or required permissions, so it stops short of 5.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the purpose and semantics, then the dry-run default, then quota/chunking behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with three optional, fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, quota, and side effects. It omits explicit return-format guidance, though the schema's response_format parameter partially covers that choice.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces dry_run's default and references input_path through the sidecar file names; it adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents.

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 operation: additive restore from portability sidecar files (library.json / playlists.json), with precise semantics: re-adds missing saved items, creates missing playlists, and skips existing ones. This differentiates it from siblings like restore_library_snapshot and import_profile_state by resource and behavior even though no sibling is named.

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?

Clear context is provided: use when restoring saved items/playlists from a sidecar export, with dry_run=true by default and actual writes only when dry_run=false. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which prevents a 5.

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