Import Authorities

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral details beyond 'import or update'. It does not mention that it's safe to re-run, how conflicts are handled (upsert based on slug?), or any side effects. Annotations provide some transparency but description could add more context.

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?

A single sentence, no unnecessary words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Every word 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 that an output schema exists (not shown) and input schema is fully described, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple import/upsert operation. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context, making it slightly incomplete for a full understanding.

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% with descriptions for each field (slug, name, url). The description adds 'import or update authorities in the database' but no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 imports or updates authorities in the database, specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like list_authorities (read-only) and other request/sync tools. However, it doesn't clarify what 'authorities' represent (e.g., users, permissions), which is a minor gap.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_authorities, create_request). No context on prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is provided.

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