doc_import

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation/idempotency profile is covered. The description adds only that the document is indexed; it says nothing about where it lands (the subdir default) or what side effects indexing triggers, so it adds limited value beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentence stating the action and its result, with zero redundant or filler content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter import tool with only 43% schema coverage, the description leaves too many behavioral and parameter details unstated to be fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. Key fields such as tags, notes, title, and subdir (default 'datasheets') are undocumented in both places, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap it inherited.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (import a document into the documentation library) and adds the outcome that it is indexed. This distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like doc_list/doc_text/doc_fetch, but it does not explicitly name which sibling it is not.

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 'already on disk' implies the condition for use (a locally stored file, e.g. one saved from a browser), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or pointer to alternatives such as doc_fetch. Usage is only implied.

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