import_memory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states two important behaviors: existing memories are not overwritten, and malformed records are rejected while duplicates are reported. This is valuable beyond the schema. However, it does not disclose the success return format or any permission requirements, so it is not a perfect 5.

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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds behavioral constraints. Every clause earns its place—there is no fluff or redundant wording.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, simple operation), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: non-destructive import and error handling. The presence of an output schema (though not shown) means the description need not explain return values. Minor gaps like the exact format of the JSON export or path requirements are acceptable for this level of complexity, so it is near-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 has 0% description coverage for the only parameter, input_path. The description does not elaborate on what input_path should contain (e.g., a file system path, a URL, or a raw JSON string). It only implies through the tool name that it is a path to a JSON export, but this is not explicitly stated. The description adds minimal semantic value over the schema's 'Input Path' title.

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 clearly states the action ('Import'), the resource ('JSON export'), and the key qualifier ('without overwriting existing memories'), which distinguishes it from other memory tools like update_memory and forget_memory. It also explicitly names the companion tool export_memory via the phrase 'JSON export', making the purpose unambiguous.

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: this tool is for importing a JSON export, implying it should be used when bringing in externally generated memory data. It does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for not using it, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from sibling tools, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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