conn_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states that existing connections are skipped by default and that overwrite=true replaces them, which is meaningful disclosure for an import/mutation tool. It does not cover broader side effects or return behavior, but for a straightforward import it is sufficiently transparent.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the key behavioral caveat. Every sentence contributes value with no waste.

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 tool has only two simple parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, so the description doesn't need extensive return-value details. It covers the import source, duplicate policy, and overwrite behavior, making the tool reasonably complete for its complexity. Minor gaps exist around errors or partial import behavior, but they are not critical here.

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 the consequence of overwrite=false (skipping existing connections) and explicitly pointing to overwrite=true for replacement, which the schema does not fully convey. It also references the JSON format from conn_export, reinforcing parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Importa conexiones desde un JSON exportado' (imports connections from an exported JSON). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like conn_export and conn_create, and adds duplicate-handling detail that sharpens the purpose.

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 clearly implies the intended use: importing connections from a conn_export-generated JSON, rather than creating them one by one with conn_create. It also gives concrete guidance on when to set overwrite=true. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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