test_import_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation does not save the configuration, which addresses the main mutation concern. However, it doesn't describe what a successful or failed test looks like, whether any transient side effects occur, or what the response will be.

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 clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then explains both parameter modes. Every part earns its place with no wasted words.

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 two-parameter test operation, the description covers the main calling modes and the no-save behavior. It doesn't mention expected return values or whether exactly one parameter is required, but given the low complexity and high schema coverage, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with high coverage: 'id' is an existing import list id and 'config' is a draft resource object. The description mostly paraphrases this, adding the 'or' relationship between the two parameters, but not substantial new meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Test... import list configuration') and clarifies the key side-effect-free property ('without saving it'). This clearly distinguishes it from create/update/delete operations and from testing other resource types like indexers or download clients.

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 explicitly states the two invocation modes: pass a config object for a draft, or pass an id for an existing list. This gives clear context on how to call the tool, though it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it.

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