import_design_artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key trait: imported rows land as DRAFT for human review and never auto-approve. It also specifies accepted formats for each artifact type (self-contained HTML, standalone HTML, PNG base64/URL), which is important behavioral detail. It does not mention potential side effects like duplicate handling or overwriting, but the described behavior is substantial and non-contradictory.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key behavioral outcome (DRAFT, no auto-approve). The second efficiently enumerates artifact format expectations. Every clause adds value, and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested arrays, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, how results are handled, and what each artifact type should look like. It doesn't delve into the exact meaning of 'carrier project' or the handoffKey fallback, but the schema provides some of that, and the core invocation requirements are clear enough for correct use. A 4 reflects that it is nearly complete for practical purposes.

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 50%, and the description meaningfully enriches the main artifact parameters. It explains that components are self-contained HTML with inline styles, pages are standalone HTML documents, and assets are PNG base64 or URL with optional sourceCode—details absent from the schema. This helps agents understand what to provide for the 'code' and 'dataBase64' fields. It doesn't cover every parameter, but the most complex ones are clarified.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Import externally designed work back into DesignFlow.' It also clarifies the immediate result ('Rows land as DRAFT... nothing auto-approves'), which distinguishes it from the getter-style sibling tools like get_design_handoff or get_design_prompt_pack. This is unambiguous and separable.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when returning externally designed work into DesignFlow. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but among the sibling tools there is no direct import alternative, so the intended use is evident. A 4 is appropriate because context is clear, though no explicit when-not guidance is given.

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