whodb_platform_bundle_import

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the default mode returns a confirmation token and the confirm step must be user-approved before proceeding. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or exactly what gets overwritten, so a 4 rather than 5.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by the plan-first guidance, the confirm workflow, and the supported parameters. No filler, and the most safety-critical instruction appears early.

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?

With annotations covering the safety profile, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the description only needs to supply purpose and workflow — which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description names prefix, rename_conflicts, and overwrite_conflicts and notes workspace targeting is per-call without changing defaults, but that per-call/default behavior is already stated in the schema, so it adds little beyond what the structured data provides.

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?

States a specific verb (import), resource (project bundle), and target (selected hosted project), immediately distinguishing it from whodb_platform_bundle_export and whodb_platform_bundle_import_plan. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Names the alternative explicitly ('Use whodb_platform_bundle_import_plan first when possible') and spells out the confirm-gating workflow ('do not call whodb_platform_confirm until the user approves the import preview'). This gives both the precondition and the sequencing an agent needs to invoke it safely.

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