import_alt_note

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Import' but does not mention side effects (filesystem changes), permissions required, idempotency, or behavior when overwrite is false/true. The optional conversion is noted but not conditioned.

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, well-structured sentence (35 words) that front-loads the action and destination. It is appropriate in length but could be more structured with bullet points or conditional notes.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It omits return values, error handling, parameter interactions (e.g., overwrite, write_converted), and prerequisites like project_root. A comprehensive description is needed.

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 only 22%. The tool description adds no parameter details, leaving 78% of parameters (e.g., title, transcript, memo, summary, write_converted, overwrite) semantically empty. It fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

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), resource (Alt active note/transcript), destination (materials/<category> and optionally converted/<category>), and purpose (PAIDEIA analysis). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like import_exam_radar, though not explicitly from the plural import_alt_notes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., import_alt_notes for bulk import). It lacks prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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