map_import_sheet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the tool 'Replace[s] active sheet content,' which is a destructive operation, and indicates it uses provided JSON data. This communicates the key behavioral trait of overwriting existing content, though it does not mention other potential side effects like undo history.

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, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value, making it exceptionally concise and well-structured.

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 single parameter, clear input schema, and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, and the schema provides the input format. It could mention error handling or relation to export, but these are not critical for selection and invocation.

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% with a detailed description of the 'data' parameter including its nested structure. The description adds minimal extra meaning by calling it 'prepared topology,' but the schema already fully explains the expected format, so the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 action: 'Replace active sheet content with provided JSON data.' This specifies the verb ('replace'), the resource ('active sheet content'), and the input format ('JSON data'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling import tools like map_import_csv or map_import_nmap.

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 a clear use case: 'Useful for loading a prepared topology in one call.' This implies when to use the tool (when you have prepared JSON data) without explicitly listing alternative tools or exclusions, but it is sufficient context for selection among siblings.

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