bricks_import_full_state

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

No annotations are provided. The description mentions 'same safety guarantees as bricks_restore_full_backup (auto safety backup, infra protection)', which discloses some behavioral traits. However, it lacks details on what gets overwritten, idempotency, or potential side effects beyond the safety note.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and input format, the second adds important safety context. Efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Considering complexity (7 params, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose and safety adequately. Some might want more detail on backup structure, but the description is sufficient for an agent to select the tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond stating the backup is supplied as JSON, which matches the schema.

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?

Description clearly states the tool imports a full-state backup supplied as JSON, distinguishing it from server-stored alternatives. It explicitly contrasts with bricks_restore_full_backup and includes the resource and action.

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 for when to use this tool (when backup is supplied as JSON) and references a sibling tool (bricks_restore_full_backup) for comparison, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or provide a decision tree.

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