superset_chart_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey safety and side-effect behavior. It discloses the ZIP requirement (must contain YAML configs and dependencies) and the overwrite parameter, but it doesn't mention failure modes, whether existing charts are updated when overwrite is true, or dependency handling details. This is a moderate level of transparency for a mutation tool.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose statement, a brief note on ZIP contents, and a clear Args block. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: source format, dependency requirement, and overwrite behavior. It doesn't detail error handling or edge cases like missing dependencies, but that isn't necessary for minimal viable completion. The presence of an output schema means return values are already defined elsewhere.

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 schema only gives types and defaults with 0% coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining file_path as an absolute path on disk and overwrite as controlling whether to overwrite objects with the same UUID, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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 the tool imports charts from a ZIP file created via export. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like superset_dashboard_import, superset_dataset_import, and superset_assets_import by specifying the resource type as 'charts'.

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 notes the ZIP file is 'created via export', which implies this tool is for restoring previously exported charts. This provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use it beyond the implicit distinction from other import tools.

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