zap_target_import

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Import,' implying a mutation, but does not explain side effects, required ZAP state, success/failure behavior, or whether existing targets are overwritten. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies system state.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core verb and resource. It is efficient with no fluff, though it lacks any secondary structure like elaboration or caveats.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 parameters. The description gives minimal context about how this fits into the broader workflow, such as whether it is a prerequisite for scanning, what happens after import, or typical failure modes. An agent would need additional knowledge to use it effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds the supported definition types, matching the definitionType parameter, but does not enrich understanding of sourceKind, endpointUrl, or hostOverride beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('API definition'), and explicitly enumerates the supported types (OpenAPI, GraphQL, SOAP). It is distinct from sibling actions like scanning or crawling, so an agent can understand its purpose, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or conditions. It simply states what it does without context about its role in the ZAP workflow (e.g., before scanning or crawling).

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