import_queries

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a potentially destructive side effect: mode='sync' deletes queries not in the folder, which is valuable. However, it does not mention the `dry_run` parameter, whether changes are reversible, or how overwrites of existing queries are handled, leaving important behavioral gaps for a mutation/import operation.

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 two focused sentences with no fluff or repetition. The primary behavior is front-loaded, and the mode semantics are stated compactly in the second sentence. Every word contributes to understanding the tool.

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 four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a destructive mode, the description is too sparse to be fully safe and self-sufficient. It omits the role of `dry_run`, any prerequisites or source requirements, and what happens after execution. An agent could invoke it correctly for the basic update case but would lack guidance for safe or non-destructive usage.

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 input schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for `folder` and `source` by tying them to the .pq loading flowaa, and it explains the `mode` values (update vs sync). However, `dry_run` is completely unexplained, and there is no detail on parameter formats or constraints beyond the schema types.

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 ('Load') and identifies the resource and direction: .pq files from `folder` into `source`. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like export_queries and copy_queries by making the import direction and file format explicit. This is an unambiguous statement of what the tool does.

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 operational context: load .pq files back into a source, with mode='update' for changes/adds and mode='sync' for deletion of stale queries. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the mode guidance is practical and sufficient for an agent to choose the intended behavior.

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