apply_import

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that by specifying a precondition ('validated') and a restriction ('empty destination'), giving the agent a clearer model of the operation's impact. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, tightly worded sentence effectively conveys the core purpose without redundancy. Every word contributes meaning, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 4-parameter complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the minimum essential context but omits key operational details such as the exact effect of the apply operation and how parameters relate. It is adequate but leaves notable 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 only 50%, with document and source_uri lacking descriptions. The tool description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. It leaves half the parameters semantically 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 uses a specific verb 'Apply' and clearly identifies the resource ('validated logical project import document') and target ('empty destination'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like validate_import and export_project by focusing on applying a validated document.

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 phrase 'validated' and 'empty destination' provides clear context for when to use the tool, implying it should follow validation and target an empty project. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using validate_import first or not applying to non-empty destinations.

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