ps_config_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an import operation, implying it's a write/mutation tool that modifies system configuration. However, it doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this overwrites existing config, requires specific permissions, has side effects, provides confirmation, or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise—a single four-word sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness; it's arguably too brief for a tool that modifies system configuration with two parameters.

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 this is a configuration mutation tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'configuration' means in this context, what a 'backup' entails, the impact of the import, or what happens after execution. For a tool that could significantly alter system state, more context is needed.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'configuration from backup' which hints at the 'data' parameter being backup content, but doesn't explain the format (e.g., JSON, binary), source, or constraints. It completely ignores the 'expectedChecksum' parameter—no mention of checksum validation, purpose, or format. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names themselves.

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 'Import configuration from backup' clearly states the verb ('Import') and resource ('configuration from backup'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of configuration or system this applies to, nor does it distinguish from sibling tools like 'ps_config_export' or 'ps_config_set' beyond the obvious import/export relationship.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a backup file), when not to use it (e.g., during active operations), or how it differs from similar tools like 'ps_config_set' (which might set individual configs) or 'ps_config_activate' (which might apply configs).

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