import_solution

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by explaining that 'upgrade' deletes components missing from the zip, that execution first exports a backup, and that an undo recipe is returned. It also discloses the ALLOWLISTED environment prerequisite and warnings/blockers, providing rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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, information-dense paragraph with the primary action front-loaded. Each sentence adds value, but the enumeration of modes and behaviors could be better structured (e.g., bullet points) for scannability. It is still appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 complex, destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical context: dry-run behavior, mode semantics, destructive consequences, backup/undo, and the allowlist prerequisite. However, it omits semantics for three parameters and leaves 'holding' mode unexplained, so it is not fully complete. The provided context is sufficient for basic safe use.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly explains dry_run and mode (including the meanings of 'update', 'upgrade', and 'holding'), and relates environment to the target org. However, settings_file, force_overwrite, and publish_changes are not described, leaving a significant portion of the API undocumented.

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-resource pairing ('Import a solution zip') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like export_solution or pack_solution by specifying the action and target ('into an ALLOWLISTED environment'). It also conveys the tool's core value proposition (dry-run planning vs execution).

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 clear context on when to use dry_run vs execution, and explains mode semantics ('update' vs 'upgrade' vs 'holding'), including a destructive caveat. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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