ruddur_import_headings

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the mapping of creatorAssessmentConfig to assessmentConfig, the scope requirement, and the conditional inclusion of assessmentConfig for assessment-style waypoints. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences deliver the core purpose, conditional logic, and scope requirement with zero filler. Every sentence 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 an import tool with detailed schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and special cases. It lacks explicit mention of return values, but the absence of an output schema and the presence of rich annotations make this acceptable.

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?

The schema already covers parameters at 100%, but the description further clarifies parameter usage by explaining the creatorAssessmentConfig mapping and when to omit assessmentConfig, enriching the schema's existing guidance.

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 'Import one or more Headings from JSON' with a specific verb, resource, and source format. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_heading, update_heading, and list_headings by focusing on bulk import from JSON payloads.

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?

Provides an explicit scope prerequisite ('Requires scope: content.manage') and clear conditional guidance on when to include assessmentConfig vs omit it for ordinary waypoints. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context of import vs create/update is implicit.

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