delimit_config_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects: writes policy file, optionally writes workflow file, sanitizes project_path. However, it does not specify overwrite behavior, permissions needed, or error cases, slightly reducing completeness.

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 concise, well-structured with separate sections for core action, usage guidance, and side effects. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (3 params, output schema exists, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and sibling relationships. It lacks details on error handling and prerequisites, but output schema covers return values. Overall, fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about config_json origin and write_workflow purpose, but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning 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 tool imports a governance config from a JSON bundle into a project, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the round-trip counterpart (delimit_config_export) and contrasting with init and project_config loading.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections provide clear guidance, naming alternative tools for different scenarios (delimit_init, delimit_project_config). The sibling contrast further clarifies the tool's role.

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