import_draft

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

The annotations already mark it as mutating and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that: it operates on working state, imports exactly one item, and does not commit a decision or change semantic authority. No contradiction with annotations.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The key behavioral scope is front-loaded, and every sentence adds meaningful context.

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 only two optional parameters, existing output schema, and annotations, the description covers the main semantics and exclusions well. The unexplained 'allowed-root' concept and exact input validation behavior are minor gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by mapping 'structured object' to the draft parameter and 'allowed-root file' to the draft_file_path parameter, also imposing an 'exactly one' constraint. It does not explain allowed-root rules or behavior when both parameters are used.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Import exactly one structured object or allowed-root file through engine draft intake.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that read, lock, compile, or end sessions.

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 'mutating working-state operation' label implies it is for bringing a draft into working state, and the statement that it does not commit a decision helps exclude decision/commit contexts. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool vs. alternatives.

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