Import Agent

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (mutating), idempotentHint=false (non-idempotent), and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the endpoint (POST /v2/agents/import), the requirement for a bundle from export, and the optional ownerAppId scoping. It does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what happens on success. Given annotations cover the core behavioral profile, the description adds only modest context, justifying a 3.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and then states the requirement and optional parameter. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the structure is efficient. This is a model of conciseness for a tool with moderate complexity.

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 a nested bundle object, no output schema, and moderate complexity. The description covers the purpose, prerequisite, and optional scoping, but does not describe the return value (e.g., the imported agent object) or any error conditions. While annotations cover the mutating nature, an agent calling this tool might want to know what it returns. This gap prevents a higher score, but the description is adequate for the core operation, so 3.

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%: the schema already documents 'bundle' as 'The bundle object returned by ethora-agents-export-v2 with format=json. Pass it through unchanged' and 'ownerAppId' as 'Owning App for the imported Agent (defaults server-side)'. The description's mention that the body IS the bundle and the option to scope via ownerAppId adds minimal value beyond the schema. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 3 is correct.

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 a specific action: 'Import an Agent from a bundle produced by ethora-agents-export-v2'. It identifies the resource (Agent), the source (bundle from export), and the verb (Import). This distinguishes it from siblings like create-v2 (which creates from scratch) and clone-v2, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for importing an agent from an existing export bundle, and it specifies a prerequisite (bundle must be from ethora-agents-export-v2 with json format). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., 'use create-v2 if you don't have a bundle'). It gives context but no explicit exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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