import_score

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

The description reveals the tool is an import operation (creating a new resource), but with no annotations, it fails to disclose critical behavioral details such as whether existing scores are overwritten, authentication requirements, or error handling. The brief description leaves the agent guessing.

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, which is concise, but it sacrifices informative content. It is appropriately short for what it says, but it does not fully earn its place as it omits important details.

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 has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, supported sources, return value, or any side effects, making it inadequate for an agent to use correctly.

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%, and the description adds no explanation for the three parameters (source, score_id, source_type). Parameter names provide minimal hints, but the description does not clarify their meaning, formats, or allowed values, especially the 'source_type' with a default of 'corpus'.

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 a score from various sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like export_score or delete_score. However, 'various sources' is vague and lacks specificity about supported source types.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over export_score or list_scores. There is no context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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