import_profile_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the two behavioral modes and the refusal of newer archives, which is genuinely useful. However, it only implies the destructive nature of overwrite ('replaces them') without warning about data loss or irreversibility, and it omits auth or side-effect context.

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 short sentences all contribute: purpose, mode semantics, and version guard, with the core statement front-loaded. A point is lost because the second sentence duplicates what the schema already says for the mode parameter.

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 simple 3-parameter tool the core semantics are covered, but with no output schema the description does not convey what a successful response looks like, and with no annotations it does not warn about the permanence of overwrite mode. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema fully documents input_path, mode, and response_format. The description's merge/overwrite sentence largely restates the mode parameter's description rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Restore local sidecar stores from a profile-state archive.' This immediately clarifies that this tool is the restore counterpart to the sibling export_profile_state and distinguishes it from restore_library_snapshot or restore_playback_state, which target different resources.

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 conveys what the tool does under each mode and the schema-version precondition, which implies when it should be invoked. However, it never names near-alternatives such as import_from_sidecar or restore_library_snapshot, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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