brain_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses overwrite behavior (default false) and mentions dry_run (via schema), but does not discuss permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens on invalid input. The description provides basic behavioral traits but lacks depth.

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 two sentences plus an example, front-loaded with purpose, and efficiently covers key points. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers main functionality and two parameters, but lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., valid instance), and details on dry_run and min_confidence.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining topic_prefix with an example and clarifying overwrite default, but many parameters (dry_run, min_confidence) are only described in the schema. The added semantics are helpful but not extensive.

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 lessons from a shared snapshot into a Brain instance, specifying the input format (share ID or URL) and optional prefix. It distinguishes from siblings like brain_share (export) and brain_import_meta (likely metadata import) by focusing on lesson import, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 usage context: import from a shared snapshot after using brain_share. It provides an example call but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., brain_import_meta) or when not to use it.

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