Import Profile

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'コピーして取り込む' usefully implies the source folder is copied rather than moved, but the description does not explain overwrite semantics, name-collision behavior, or what happens to an existing destination profile. This is a significant gap for a tool with an overwrite parameter.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the core operation directly and is easy to scan.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the single-sentence description is not enough. It omits overwrite/destination-name behavior and does not position the tool relative to bake_profile, so an agent may not confidently choose and invoke it correctly in all cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. It indirectly identifies source_dir as the existing profile folder, but it never explains name or overwrite or how they affect the import. The description only partially maps to the parameters and leaves most of their semantics undocumented.

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?

Description states a clear action: copy and import an existing browser profile folder that already has login state. It identifies both verb and resource well, distinguishing the tool's domain from siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast it with bake_profile or the read-only siblings.

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 phrase '既存の(すでにログイン状態を持つ)' implies the intended use case: importing an existing, logged-in profile folder. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings like bake_profile, and no when-not-to-use conditions.

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