import_mappings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the critical merge semantics: 'Existing keys are not overwritten.' That tells the agent this is a non-destructive additive import. It stops short of covering error behavior, whether the target file is created if missing, or how nested conflicts resolve.

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, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the key side-effect constraint in the second sentence. Every clause 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?

For a two-parameter file-import tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action and overwrite policy but leaves gaps: no error semantics, no statement on whether the .smart-figma file is created or must pre-exist, and no explanation of nested-object merge behavior despite the data param being a nested object.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description adds only the loose mapping of 'external JSON' to the data parameter; it says nothing about the shape of the mappings array or the projectRoot path contract beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('Import mapping assets from external JSON') plus the exact target file, so the agent knows precisely what happens. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling export_mappings, though the import direction is implicit.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'from external JSON' – there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of export_mappings as the counterpart that produces such JSON, and no prerequisites (e.g. project root must already contain a mappings file).

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