lm_import_model

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety envelope is already given. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by clarifying the operation copies rather than moves, meaning the source file survives — something the annotations do not express. It still omits overwrite/collision and destination behavior, so not a 5.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, and the non-destructiveness guarantee immediately follows. 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 mutating tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description should explain dry_run vs commit behavior and the user_repo/namespace parameter. It covers the core operation but leaves key parameter semantics and any return/error behavior undocumented.

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 description coverage is 0% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the full documentation burden. It only loosely implies dry_run semantics via 'Preview' and says nothing about where the model lands, and user_repo is entirely unexplained in both description and 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?

States a specific verb (preview/import), the resource (local GGUF model), and the mechanism (copying it into LM Studio). This is readily distinguished from lm_download (remote fetch) and lm_load (loading into memory), so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'Preview/import' combined with the dry_run default of true implies the preview-then-commit workflow, but the description never states when to use this over lm_load or lm_download, nor any prerequisites (e.g., the file must already exist locally). Usage is only implied.

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