modules_import

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

Annotations already flag destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description adds real value on top: it specifies additive merge semantics, Admin authorization, and that the connection reconnects after success. It stops short of describing conflict handling or partial-failure behavior, which matters for a destructive batch import.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: operation type, supported options, prerequisite, and post-call side effect. Front-loaded with the core verb+resource and no filler.

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 destructive, non-idempotent batch import with nested package objects (key, path, applyLayout) and no output schema, the description covers the safety essentials but leaves the semantics of nested package fields and failure behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

With schema coverage at only 25%, the description does compensate somewhat by naming per-package layout and optional table shape/global-script selection, mapping to applyLayout, table_shape_from and apply_global_script. But it never explains the package 'key' vs 'path' distinction, the meaning of table_shape_from (an integer with no schema description), or the 30-item cap implied by maxItems.

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?

States a specific verb and scope: 'additively merge ... local TTCraft module ZIP archives', which is clearly a write/import operation distinct from reads. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling archives_import or blueprint_apply, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 'Requires Admin' prerequisite gives a usable gate, and 'Additively merge' hints at the non-replacing behavior. However, no when-not-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g. archives_import) is offered, so routing between similar import tools is left to inference.

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