Import server databases into the panel

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and 'Safe and non-destructive to existing records' largely restates that safety profile, adding only the nuance that existing panel records are untouched. It does not mention the non-idempotent behavior flagged in annotations or any permission requirements for a write operation, so it adds limited value beyond the structured fields.

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 short sentences, with the action and scope front-loaded in the first. The second sentence is brief but partially overlaps the safety information already carried by annotations.

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 one-optional-parameter import tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, scope, and safety adequately. It lacks any note on authorization or what the call returns, but nothing essential to invoking it correctly is missing.

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 the single 'sid' parameter and its 'website id to bind to, 0 for none' semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Pull ... into the panel inventory') and a precise scope: databases present in MySQL but untracked by the panel. This clearly separates it from siblings like db_list, db_create, and db_import_sql, which either read, create, or load SQL rather than register existing databases.

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 condition for use is explicit and narrow ('exist in MySQL but are not tracked by the panel'), so an agent knows when this tool applies rather than db_create or db_list. It does not name alternative tools explicitly or state when not to use it, which keeps it short of a 5.

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