ddev_import_db

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals supported formats, archive extraction behavior, and the default targetDb. However, it omits critical behavioral aspects such as whether an existing database is overwritten, permissions needed, or what the command outputs on success/failure.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action is stated first, followed by a concise list of supported formats and usage details. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the usage line is a bit terse and tucks projectPath away.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or success/failure behavior, which is a gap for an import operation. It also does not describe the projectPath parameter in the text, though it appears in the schema. The tool is relatively simple, but lacks coverage of side effects and output.

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 enriches this by mapping each MCP arg to the corresponding ddev flag (src → --file, targetDb → --database, extractPath → --extract-path), and clarifies the default for targetDb ('default "db"') and the purpose of extractPath. This adds practical value beyond the schema.

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: 'Import a SQL dump file into the project.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling ddev_export_db by the action (import vs export) and lists supported file formats, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's 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?

Provides explicit usage syntax ('Usage: ddev import-db [project] [flags]') and an MCP arg-to-flag mapping. Gives conditional guidance for archives ('For archives, use extractPath'). Does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear and actionable.

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