import_mext_catalog

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

Annotations already indicate the operation is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds the outcome that opcodes become known, but it does not disclose whether the import merges with or replaces existing opcodes, whether an open project is required, or how the state is persisted. Disclosure is partial.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the parenthetical outcome earns its place by explaining the practical benefit.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and expected effect. However, it omits operational details such as whether the import modifies a project, how it interacts with existing opcodes, and whether any setup is required, leaving it adequate but not fully complete.

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%, and the description never explicitly documents the 'path' parameter. It implies the path points to a community .mext block catalog JSON, which adds meaning beyond the bare string name, but it leaves path format, scope, and file requirements unspecified.

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 states a specific action, importing a community .mext block catalog JSON, and a clear outcome: its opcodes become known and unknown warnings stop. This distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like list_opcodes and describe_opcode, and no other sibling imports catalogs.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when dealing with community .mext content and unknown opcode warnings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the triggering condition is implicit in 'no more unknown warnings.'

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