import_course_from_frappe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions fetching from Frappe and storing in SQLite, indicating network I/O and local state mutation. However, it does not specify idempotency (e.g., overwrites or skips if cached), error handling for inactive connections, or authentication requirements.

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 two sentences plus an Args list, all relevant and front-loaded. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 simplicity (one parameter, basic import operation) and the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core behavior well. It lacks details on handling duplicate imports or edge cases, but this is acceptable for a straightforward tool.

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 only parameter course_slug is described as 'The Frappe course name (slug).' This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has a title and no description. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description effectively compensates by clarifying the parameter's purpose.

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 specifies the action (import), source (active Frappe connection), destination (local cache), and what is fetched (course outline) and stored (metadata in SQLite). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_cached_courses or create_course by focusing on importing from an external connection.

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 when you want to bring a Frappe course into local cache, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., if course already cached) or prerequisites (e.g., need an active connection). No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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