akb_import

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals important traits: existing paths are skipped (idempotency), writer role is required, concept documents with type table/file are imported as regular documents, and the only supported format is currently 'okf'. It omits details like return values or partial failure semantics, but for an import tool this is substantial transparency.

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 six sentences, each carrying distinct information. It opens with the primary purpose, then details input shape, format, concept-doc behavior, idempotency, and permission requirement. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence earns its place.

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 and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input shape, format options, permission requirements, idempotent behavior, and special handling of concept documents. Minor gaps remain regarding partial success semantics, vault existence requirements, and return values, but these are not critical for basic usage.

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?

The input schema already documents all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that `files` should use the exact shape returned by akb_export, clarifying `format` with 'currently okf', and elaborating on how concept documents are handled. This goes beyond the schema's restatements.

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's function: 'Import a knowledge bundle into a vault.' It specifies the target resource (vault) and the action (import), and differentiates itself by referencing the exact shape returned by akb_export, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like akb_put that handle individual documents. The concept-document handling detail further clarifies its scope.

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 the tool: pass `files` as a {path: content} map, select `format`, and note that existing paths are skipped rather than overwritten. It implies when not to use it (when overwriting is needed) and gives a role requirement (writer). It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the guidance is sufficient for differentiating from related operations.

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