script_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful traits: preservation of disabled state and one previous version, plus the non-actions (does not execute scripts, does not change a running browser). It omits auth/permission requirements and failure behavior on a SHA or revision mismatch.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its required inputs, followed by preservation and non-action clauses. No wasted 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?

For a 3-param mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, it covers purpose, required inputs, preservation semantics, and explicit non-actions. Slightly short on permission/failure context, but otherwise adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it maps all three params loosely (local file=path, SHA-256, revision), but adds no detail on what expectedRevision guards against or how a mismatch is handled.

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 pair (import/update) and resource (reviewed local file), with a distinguishing constraint (exact preview SHA-256 and revision). It is clearly separable from script_preview/script_change, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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 reference to 'its exact preview SHA-256 and revision' implies this follows a script_preview, giving implied workflow context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative such as script_change.

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