import_data_encryption_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It does not disclose any side effects (e.g., whether the existing key is overwritten, required permissions, or impact on data encryption). It only states the inputs, leaving behavioral traits opaque.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded and concise, stating the action, the resource, and the required inputs efficiently.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter import tool, the description covers the essential purpose and inputs. However, due to the lack of annotations and absence of side-effect disclosure, it is not fully complete in a security-sensitive context.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description merely restates 'key package' and 'passphrase' without adding any new meaning or format details beyond what the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the verb (Import), the resource (Arc data encryption key), and the context ('previously exported'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings by referencing the export process and the key package/passphrase.

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?

It implies the appropriate use case (importing a key that was previously exported) by mentioning 'previously exported,' but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like import_certificate. Still, the context is clear.

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