ssh_db_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it explains the destructive actions per database type (PostgreSQL uses pg_restore --clean, MongoDB uses mongorestore --drop, MySQL pipes), and mentions automatic decompression of .gz inputs. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and destructive nature. It then efficiently covers per-database behavior, supported types, and compression handling in just a few sentences.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's impact, expected behavior for each database type, and input file handling. It is complete enough for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explaining the semantic differences of the 'drop' parameter (MongoDB only, default true) and the type-specific behavior for each database system. This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 dump file into a target database on a remote server, explicitly noting it is destructive. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ssh_db_dump and ssh_db_query by focusing on importing and restoring data.

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?

While the description explains the destructive nature and per-database behavior, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ssh_db_query or ssh_backup_restore. Usage context is implied but not directly stated.

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