import_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: default merging versus replacing all current images with imported ones. This is a mutation operation, and the description clearly states the two modes. It does not elaborate on nuances of merging (e.g., conflict resolution) or side effects on undo history, but the main behavioral choice is transparent.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical merge behavior follows immediately. Every phrase contributes to understanding how to use 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?

For a tool with only three scalar parameters and no enums or nesting, the description covers the essential behavior. The output schema exists (though not detailed here), and parameter semantics are well-handled. Minor gaps (e.g., what happens to existing data on merge, exact behavior of restore_history) are acceptable given the schema's descriptions.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the merge parameter's default and its effect, which goes beyond the raw schema. It does not add anything about path or restore_history, but those are well-described in the schema.

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 that the tool imports a previously exported session from a zip archive. It distinguishes itself from siblings like export_session (reverse operation) and load_image (single image vs entire session) with a specific verb and resource.

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 implies usage via the tool's name and mentions the merge parameter's default behavior, but it does not explicitly instruct when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., load_image or export_session). No exclusions or alternative routing is given, though the context that it is for restoring sessions is reasonably clear.

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