project_import

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the 'fresh document identity' behavior (meaning it won't overwrite an existing document) and the 100 MB size limit. It doesn't mention what happens to the existing workspace or whether the import replaces content, but the fresh identity clause mitigates that concern.

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?

One sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action, specifies the input format, the target, the identity behavior, and the size limit. Every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what to pass (base64 bundle), where it goes (this workspace), the identity behavior (fresh), and the size limit (100 MB). It doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, but with no output schema and a simple input, this is acceptable. The destructiveHint annotation covers the mutation warning.

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. The description explains that 'data' is a base64-encoded portable editable Studio bundle, which adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. However, it doesn't specify the exact base64 format requirements (e.g., with or without data URI prefix, MIME type) or what happens if the bundle is malformed. The maxLength in the schema (140000000) roughly aligns with the 100 MB claim but the description doesn't explain the relationship.

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 action ('Import a portable editable Studio bundle as base64'), the target ('into this workspace'), and a key behavioral detail ('with a fresh document identity'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like document_create, asset_import, and document_duplicate by specifying the bundle format and the fresh identity behavior.

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 when to use this tool: when you have a portable editable Studio bundle in base64 that needs to be imported as a new document. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'fresh document identity' clause helps differentiate it from document_duplicate or document_apply. The 100 MB limit is a clear constraint.

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