import_environment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auto-detection and the 'overwrite' parameter implication but does not state whether the import is destructive, what happens on conflicts when overwrite is false, or any authentication/rate-limit constraints. Key behavioral traits (e.g., file not found, permission errors) are omitted.

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 long, front-loading the primary action and a key behavioral feature (auto-detection). Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a tool with four 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?

The description covers the core purpose but lacks information on success/failure outcomes, prerequisite conditions (e.g., file existence), and return values. Since there is no output schema, the description should at least hint at what the tool returns (e.g., environment details or confirmation). The 4-parameter complexity and lack of annotations make the description insufficiently complete for an AI agent to fully understand usage.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds marginal value by explaining auto-detection behavior for the 'file' parameter default. However, it does not go beyond the schema to clarify semantic nuances like format expectations or validation rules. Given full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 an environment from a specific file or auto-detects .env.json files in the .atm/ directory. The verb 'importa' and resource 'entorno' match the tool name exactly, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like env_create (manual creation) or import_postman_environment (Postman format).

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 indicates when to use the tool (importing from files) but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't contrast with env_create for manual creation or with import_collection for collections. The auto-detection hint is helpful but incomplete for an AI agent to decide between similar import tools.

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