spine_import_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the CLI invocation and that a missing project is created, but never says what happens to existing project data (overwrite? merge?), what -r [name] actually does, or that this is a mutating operation writing to disk.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler, and the core action comes first. The embedded CLI syntax is dense but earns its place by clarifying the mechanism, though it could be folded into plainer language.

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 not be explained. But for a 5-parameter destructive write with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves too much unknown (overwrite semantics, scale, timeout, skeleton naming) to call the tool safely.

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% across 5 parameters. The description only maps data_file and project (the required pair) and gestures at skeleton_name via '-r [name]' without explaining it; scale and timeout are entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 and resource: import a Spine JSON/binary file (or another project) into a .spine project. The parenthetical CLI form pins down the mechanism. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to distinguish from, but 'project is created if missing' implicitly separates it from spine_create_project.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call it when you have a data file to bring into a project, and creation-if-missing is stated. There is no explicit 'use spine_create_project first if...' or guidance on when spine_export/the other project tools are the right choice instead.

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