ima_import_urls

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful API constraint (folder_id is required by the interface; pass knowledge_base_id to target the root), but it says nothing about deduplication, whether import is synchronous, permission requirements, or partial-failure behavior for a batch write.

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, front-loaded with purpose and followed immediately by the one non-obvious invocation rule. No filler or restatement of the name.

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?

With three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the folder_id quirk but omits what happens on success/failure, whether results are immediate, and how duplicate URLs are handled. Adequate to call correctly, not complete enough to predict behavior.

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 explains folder_id's optionality and the root-directory workaround involving knowledge_base_id, and it constrains urls to webpage/WeChat article links — good coverage of two of three parameters. It never mentions the 10-URL batch ceiling or URL format expectations, leaving gaps.

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 (导入/import) and resource (webpage or WeChat article URLs) into a named target (IMA 知识库). The resource type (URLs) implicitly separates it from ima_upload_file_to_knowledge and ima_add_note_to_knowledge, but no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied by the resource type — an agent can infer this is the tool for URL-based ingestion versus file upload or note creation. The only conditional guidance given concerns folder_id placement, not when to choose this tool over its siblings.

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